Opinion
1:21-CV-436-HAB-SLC
02-02-2022
FRANCISCO M. VAZQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. ALLEN COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
HOLLY A. BRADY, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Francisco M. Vazquez, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint. ECF 1. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
In his complaint, Vazquez alleges that, on October 29, 2021, prison officers violated his constitutional rights because they read his confidential psychiatric medical requests. ECF 1 at 2. He states that during a cell search in D-Block, Officer Morgan made insulting and demeaning comments about his medical requests to other inmates. Id. As a result of Morgan's actions, Vazquez maintains that his whole cell block now insults and humiliates him. Id. He states that his medical requests are confidential, and the disclosure of that information violates the privacy rules of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1320d et seq. Id.
Vazquez's allegations do not state a claim for relief. If Morgan disclosed Vazquez's psychiatric medical requests, such conduct is certainly unprofessional, but HIPAA does not create a private right of action. See Dittmann v. ACS Human Servs. LLC, 210 F.Supp.3d 1047, 1054 (N.D. Ind. 2016). “Only the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Attorney General of a state may bring an enforcement action under HIPAA.” Id. Therefore, Vazquez has not stated a viable constitutional claim against Morgan.
Vazquez has also sued the Allen County Jail. However, he may not proceed against the jail because it is a building and not a suable entity. Smith v. Knox County Jail, 666 F.3d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir. 2012). Thus, he cannot proceed on this claim.
“The usual standard in civil cases is to allow defective pleadings to be corrected, especially in early stages, at least where amendment would not be futile.” Abu-Shawish v. United States, 898 F.3d 726, 738 (7th Cir. 2018). However, “courts have broad discretion to deny leave to amend where . . . the amendment would be futile.” Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 432 (7th Cir. 2009). For the reasons previously explained, such is the case here.
For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
SO ORDERED.