1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 K. MWASI, Case No. 22-cv-00973-JD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER RE DISMISSAL v. 10

11 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., Defendants. 12

13 14 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under

. 15 He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 16 DISCUSSION 17 STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 19 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 21 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 22 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se 23 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th 24 Cir. 1990). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 26 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 27 factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 1 cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above 2 the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007) (citations 3 omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 4 face.”

. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” 5 standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they 6 must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court 7 should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 8 to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). 9 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by 10 the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 11 committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,

(1988). 12 LEGAL CLAIMS 13 Plaintiff alleges that his medical records have been provided to the California Attorney 14 General’s Office in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 15 (“HIPAA”). The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act,

Stat. 16 1936 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.) “provides for no private right of 17 action.” Webb v. Smart Document Solutions,

(9th Cir. 2007); see, e.g., 18 Seaton v. Mayberg,

(9th Cir. 2010) (citing Webb and dismissing prisoner’s 19 claim under HIPAA for disclosure of his medical records). 20 Plaintiff states that litigation coordinators at several prisons in California have provided his 21 medical records to attorneys in the Attorney General’s Office. While plaintiff has engaged in 22 extensive litigation, he states that providing access to his medical records violates HIPAA. 23 Pursuant to the legal standards set forth above, plaintiff is not entitled to relief because there is no 24 private right of action under HIPAA. Because no amount of amendment would cure the 25 deficiencies in this complaint, this action is dismissed without leave to amend. 26 CONCLUSION 27 1. This action is DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to state a claim and as 1 2. The Clerk is requested to close this case. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: March 22, 2022 4 5 JAMES DBMATO 6 United Stes District Judge 4 8 9 10 11 12

13

15

QO 16

17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28