Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-CV-652
02-13-2020
LAVELLE PATTERSON, Plaintiff, v. LAWRENCE F. BARBEE, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM BAYLSON, J.
Plaintiff Lavelle Patterson has brought a Complaint using the Court's preprinted form for use by unrepresented litigants to bring civil claims. Patterson has also moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted and the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.
I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Patterson's Complaint is quite brief. She appears to assert a claim under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6. She alleges that on February 3, 2019, a woman whom she had accused of stealing her cell phone yelled at Patterson that she knew she had A.I.D.S. and Hepatitis C because Defendant Larry Barbee had told her that information. (ECF No. 2 at 3.) Reviewing the attachments to Patterson's form Complaint, it appears that she received medical services from an entity called Merakey, which is managed by Magellan Healthcare. (Id. at 7, 11.) She filed an internal complaint with Magellan accusing Barbee, his former case worker, of sharing his protected health information without her consent. (Id. at 7, 11-12.) Citing the same date as in his form Complaint, Patterson reported to Magellan that her acquaintance knew information about Patteron's health that Barbee had shared with the acquaintance. (Id. at 8.) After investigating Patterson's complaint, in a decision dated March 13, 2019, Magellan informed Patterson that it was unable to confirm that Defendant Barbee shared information with anyone. (Id. at 8-9.) Patterson does not specify what relief she seeks from the Court.
While Patterson asserts "I am Bay now transitioning into female" (ECF No. 2 at 11), Patterson's preferred pronoun is unclear from the Complaint. The Court will refer to her as she.
The Court adopts the pagination supplied by the CM/ECF docketing system. --------
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Patterson is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) applies, which requires the Court to dismiss the Complaint if it fails to state a claim. Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to determine whether the complaint contains "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). Conclusory allegations do not suffice. Id. As Patterson is proceeding pro se, the Court construes her allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
III. DISCUSSION
Patterson's Complaint, apparently seeking to raise a civil claim based on an alleged violation of HIPPA, must be dismissed. There is no federal private right of action under HIPPA. See Dodd v. Jones, 623 F.3d 563, 569 (8th Cir.2010); Webb v. Smart Document Solutions, LLC, 499 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2007); Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2006); Baum v. Keystone Mercy Health Plan, 826 F. Supp. 2d 718, 721 (E.D. Pa. 2011); see also 65 Fed. Reg. 82,600, 82,601 (Dec. 28, 2000) ("Under HIPAA, individuals do not have a right to court action.").
Because the Court cannot discern whether there are any other non-frivolous claims within the jurisdiction of the federal courts that Patterson may be seeking to bring against Barbee, the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice and Patterson will be provided an opportunity to file an amended complaint if she is able to cure the defects the Court has identified. An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Michael M. Baylson
MICHAEL M. BAYLSON, J.