Jamie Dershem v. Prime Care, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania screened Jamie Dershem’s pro se prisoner complaint against PrimeCare Medical, Inc., and correctional officials. The court dismissed the HIPAA claims with prejudice because HIPAA does not provide a private right of action, and dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment claim without leave to amend. The Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim was dismissed without prejudice, with leave to file an amended complaint.

Holdings

1. HIPAA does not create a private right of action, so claims based solely on an alleged HIPAA violation cannot proceed and were properly dismissed with prejudice.
2. The complaint failed to plausibly allege an Eighth Amendment violation based on placement in a cell without heat or hot water for eight days because it did not allege an objectively sufficiently serious deprivation or deliberate indifference by any defendant.
3. The complaint failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim because it did not allege that the eight-day placement was atypical or constituted a significant deprivation creating a protected liberty interest.
4. The court was required to permit curative amendment unless amendment would be inequitable or futile, but amendment of the HIPAA and Fourteenth Amendment claims would be futile; Dershem was granted leave to amend the Eighth Amendment claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Dershem could pursue a private claim under HIPAA based on the alleged disclosure of her medical information.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement violation based on eight days in a cell without heat or hot water.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation based on the eight-day cell placement.
4. Whether Dershem was entitled to leave to amend the dismissed claims.

Disposition

dismissed