“HIPPA does not create a private right of action”
How later courts described this case
- “HIPPA does not create a private right of action”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
MICHAEL BRANDON YOUNG PLAINTIFF
VS. 4:22-CV-00144-BRW
FAULKNER COUNTY DHS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Plaintiff, who is in custody at the Benton County Detention Center, filed a pro se
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,1 and submitted an application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. No. 2). Based on the documentation Plaintiff provided, the request to proceed in
forma pauperis is GRANTED. For the reasons stated below, this case is DISMISSED.
I. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION
Prisoners who are allowed to file civil actions in forma pauperis still must pay a $350.00
filing fee.2 If a prisoner cannot afford to pay the filing fee in a lump sum, money is withdrawn
from his prison trust fund account in monthly installments.3
Because Plaintiff’s calculation sheet indicates that his initial filing fee would be zero
dollars, he will not have an initial payment. However, Plaintiff’s present custodian is directed to
collect, and send to the Clerk of the Court, monthly installments equal to 20% of the preceding
month’s income credited to Plaintiff’s prison trust account each time the amount in the account
1Doc. No. 1.
228 U.S.C. §1915(b)(1).
328 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)-(2).
exceeds $10.00, until the $350 filing fee is fully paid.4 All payments should be clearly identified
by the name and number assigned to this case.
The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to the Benton County
Detention Center, 1300 SW 14th Street, Bentonville, AR 72712.
II. SCREENING
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints
seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee.5 In such cases, a court must
summarily dismiss all claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from liability.6
Although DHS is listed as a defendant, Plaintiff alleges nothing specific against DHS.
As for Kathy Harper, a DHS employee, Plaintiff alleges that she sent text messages to Scotty
Feltman about Plaintiff’s alleged drug use resulting in Plaintiff losing custody of his children.
Plaintiff alleges that Melissa Lowe, who also works at DHS, “sabotaged” him by testifying that
he was not complying with “DHS or the courts.” Plaintiff asserts causes of action for HIPPA
violations, exploitation of a minor, abuse of public office, negligence, dereliction of duties, and
defamation. He asks that charges be brought against Ms. Harper and Ms. Lowe, that he be given
custody of his child, and seeks $500,000 in compensatory damages.
First, claims against DHS and Ms. Harper and Ms. Lowe in their official capacity must
be dismissed because all three are entitled to immunity from § 1983 claims under the Eleventh
428 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)-(2).
528 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
628 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
Amendment.7 Second, there is no private cause of cause action for a HIPPA violation.8 Third,
causes of action for defamation9 and negligence10 cannot be brought under § 1983. Fourth,
dereliction of duties and exploitation of a minor are not civil causes of action. Finally, this Court
lacks jurisdiction to review state-court decisions regarding parental rights.11
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is GRANTED. However, this case is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of February, 2022.
Billy Roy Wilson_________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7Murphy v. State of Arkansas, 127 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir. 1997).
8Dodd v. Jones, 623 F.3d 563, 569 (8th Cir. 2010) (“HIPPA does not create a private right
of action”).
9 Loftin v. United States, 72 F.3d 133 (8th Cir. 1995) (“A cause of action for defamation is
not cognizable under section 1983.”).
10Terrell v. Larson, 396 F.3d 975, 978 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (mere negligence insufficient
to establish culpability under § 1983).
11Ballinger v. Culotta, 322 F.3d 546, 548–49 (8th Cir.2003) (concluding Rooker–Feldman
doctrine bared the district court from considering plaintiff's claim that the state court
unconstitutionally infringed on his parental rights); Roman-Nose v. N.M. Dep’t of Human Services,
967 F.2d 435, 437 (10th Cir.1992) (Federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over §
1983 claims that effectively seek review of state court child custody determinations).