Opinion
No. C 02-1566 WHA (PR)
August 6, 2002
JUDGMENT
The court has dismissed this prisoner in forma pauperis compliant. Judgment is entered in favor of defendants. Plaintiff shall take nothing by way of his complaint.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL (Doc. 2)
Plaintiff, who is hospitalized at Napa State Hospital, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He contends that defendants violated his constitutional rights by refusing him permission to see his mental health records. He also requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Federal courts are required to dismiss a case filed in forma pauperis if the court determines at any time that the action is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or is directed against a defendant who is immune. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(D)(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
B. Legal Claims
Plaintiff alleges that defendants, who are a psychiatrist and a psychologist at Napa State Hospital, violated his "constitutional rights to review [his] medical records."
There is no constitutional right for a patient to see his own medical records. Gotkin v. Miller, 514 F.2d 125, 128 (2d Cir. 1975). The federal Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts, although containing provisions regarding access to records, apply only to federal, not state, agencies. See 5 U.S.C. § 552; 552a. Plaintiff has thus failed to state a federal claim, and because no amendment could cure this, the case will be dismissed without leave to amend.
Although Gotkin is an older case, the court has found no authority to the contrary and it has not been overruled. It has been relied upon in relatively recent law review commentary for the proposition that there is no constitutional right to access to one's own medical records. Hayley Rosenman, Note, Patients' Rights to Access Their Medical Records: An Argument for Uniform Recognition of a Right of Access in the United States and Australia, 21 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1500, 1510 (1998); Paul V. Stearns, Commentary, 21 L.J. Legal Med. 79, 100-03 (2000).
A California statute provides a right of access to one's own medical records, Cal. Health Safety Code § 123110, but contains an exception for mental health records if the health care provider determines that seeing the records would present a substantial risk of significant adverse or detrimental consequences to the patient, Cal. Health Safety Code § 123115(b). Plaintiff also states, in passing, that the refusal to allow him to see his medical records was "medical malpractice." In the absence of any federal basis for plaintiff's suit, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state claims, if indeed they are actionable at all. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(C)(3). The state claims, if any, will be dismissed without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 2) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion for entry of default is DENIED because no service has occurred. For the reasons set out above, plaintiff's federal claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. His state claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.