Jennie Marie Carrico v. Superintendent Kimberly Haug, Daniel O’Dell, Tiffany Payne, Julie Colley, and L. Coen

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted the moving defendants’ motion to dismiss Jennie Marie Carrico’s pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action concerning alleged delays and interference with mental health treatment while she was a pretrial detainee. The court dismissed claims involving HIPAA, official-capacity and supervisory liability, grievance processing, deliberate indifference, and retaliation; claims against defendant L. Coen remained pending.

Holdings

1. HIPAA does not provide a private right of action, so Carrico’s HIPAA claims failed as a matter of law.
2. Carrico failed to plead that an official policy or custom caused her alleged constitutional injuries; the official-capacity claims against Haug and Payne were dismissed.
3. Carrico failed to state a supervisory-liability claim against Haug because she did not plausibly allege pervasive unconstitutional conduct, deliberate indifference or tacit authorization, and an affirmative causal link.
4. Carrico had no constitutional entitlement to a grievance procedure, and O’Dell’s alleged failure to process her grievance did not state a § 1983 claim.
5. Carrico failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Colley because the allegations showed that Colley processed the initial requests and explained the treatment queue, rather than acting objectively unreasonably.
6. Carrico failed to state constitutional claims against Payne based on Payne’s handling of request forms, reliance on Colley’s medical judgment, or alleged retaliation for submitting duplicative requests.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Carrico stated a private cause of action under HIPAA.
2. Whether Carrico stated official-capacity claims against Haug and Payne by alleging a policy, custom, or supervisory failure causing a constitutional injury.
3. Whether Carrico stated a supervisory-liability claim against Haug under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
4. Whether O’Dell’s alleged failure to process a grievance violated Carrico’s constitutional rights.
5. Whether Carrico stated a Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Colley concerning mental-health treatment.
6. Whether Carrico stated constitutional claims against Payne based on her handling of mental-health requests, reliance on medical staff, or alleged retaliation.

Disposition

dismissed