Opinion
Civil Action 1:23-CV-1234
07-27-2023
NICOLE GARCIA, Plaintiff v. DAUPHIN COUNTY, Defendant
RAMBO, D.J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (SCREENING ORDER ON DOC. 1)
William I. Arbuckle, U.S. Magistrate Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
On July 26, 2023, Nicole Garcia (“Plaintiff”) initiated this case by lodging a Complaint (Doc. 1) and Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). Plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As Defendant, Plaintiff names Dauphin County. Plaintiff purports to be bringing her Complaint under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”). However, HIPAA does not provide appropriate cause of action.
Because she is proceeding in forma pauperis, Plaintiff is subject to the screening provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The screening procedures set forth in the statute apply to in forma pauperis complaints filed by prisoners and nonprisoners alike. Under this statute, the Court is required to dismiss any action that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. There is no constitutional right to the expenditure of public funds and the valuable time of federal courts to prosecute an action which is totally without merit.
See Atamian v. Burns, 236 Fed.Appx. 753, 755 (3d Cir. 2007).
See Collins v. Cundy, 603 F.2d 825, 828 (10th Cir. 1979).
After reviewing Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court concludes it is frivolous. Further, the Court concludes leave to amend would be futile. It will therefore be recommended that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend and the Clerk of Court ordered to close this case.
II. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 26, 2023, Plaintiff lodged this pro se, Complaint (Doc. 1) along with a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). By separate order, the Court will grant Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis contemporaneously with this Report and Recommendation. In her Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendant “‘Dauphin County' for Children & Youth.” (Doc. 1, p. 1). Plaintiff states that she brings her complaint under “HIPPA [sic].” Id. Plaintiff's Complaint is brief. It alleges in its entirety:
July of 2023 I had a video chat with a Dr. not my normal dr. [sic] but I had to explain my issues. She felt that I was on drugs. Called to have me drug tested and Children & Youth came to my apt. [sic]. I was clean she asked me questions about my kids and thats [sic] if they had been going to their apts [sic] etc.
July 25 stated on my UPMC portal Children & Youth called my Dr. and left a message for them to call her back stated on the attached “paper” I never signed a release for them to contact anyone.(Doc. 1, p. 2). To her Complaint Plaintiff attaches a printout of what appears to be a screenshot taken on her phone. (Doc. 1-2, p. 1). The screenshot is from Plaintiff's UPMC portal under Notes and details two telephone encounters:
Cindy C Melnick at 7/25/2023 1:20 PM
No answer. LVM that I called.
Carol T at 7/24/2023 11:52 AM
Rachel form [sic] Children and Youth would like you to call her back regarding patient. 717-743-3680(Doc. 1-2, p. 1). Plaintiff does not allege what injuries she suffered or what relief she would like. With this background in mind we turn to the legal standards applicable to this case.
III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)
This Court has a statutory obligation to conduct a preliminary review of pro se complaints brought by litigants given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Specifically, the Court is obliged to review the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which provides, in pertinent part:
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that -
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal--
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
In performing this mandatory screening function, the Court applies the same standard that is used to evaluate motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a complaint should be dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has observed the evolving standards governing pleading practice in the federal courts, stating that “pleading standards have seemingly shifted from simple notice pleading to a more heightened form of pleading, requiring a plaintiff to plead more than the possibility of relief to survive a motion to dismiss.” “[A] complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's entitlement to relief.” It also “has to ‘show' such an entitlement with its facts.”
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 209-10 (3d Cir. 2009).
Id. at 211.
Id.
To test the sufficiency of the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must conduct the following three-step inquiry:
First, the court must “tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1947. Second, the court should identify allegations that, “because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Id. at 1950. Finally, “where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should
assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief.” Id.
Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010).
A complaint filed by a pro se litigant is to be liberally construed and ‘“however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” Nevertheless, “pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim.” Thus, a well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere legal labels and conclusions. Even a pro se complaint must recite factual allegations that are enough to raise the Plaintiff's claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation. It must set forth in a “short and plain” statement of a cause of action.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013).
With this legal standard and background in mind we turn to our analysis of Plaintiff's Complaint.
IV. ANALYSIS
The Court will recommend Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A complaint “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” In this case, Plaintiff's Complaint lacks an arguable basis in law. Plaintiff states that she is bringing her Complaint under HIPAA. (Doc. 1, p. 1). While it is not clear what relief Plaintiff would like the Court to grant her, “HIPAA does not create a private right of action.” Plaintiff therefore cannot bring a complaint under HIPAA. It will thus be recommended that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Johnson v. WPIC, 782 Fed.Appx. 169, 171 (3d Cir. 2019).
V. FUTILITY OF AMENDMENT
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1815(e)(2), a plaintiff is “entitled to amend their complaint unless doing so would be inequitable or futile.” As HIPAA does not provide a private cause of action, granting Plaintiff leave to amend her Complaint would be futile and the Court will therefore recommend Plaintiff not be granted leave to amend.
Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir. 2002).
VI. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
(1) Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED without leave to amend as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
(2) The Clerk of Court be directed to mark this case as CLOSED.
NOTICE OF LOCAL RULE 72.3
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.