HESTER-CARRILLO v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SUSAN HESTER-CARRILLO, :

:

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-2134

:

v. :

:

COMMONWEALTH OF :

PENNSYLVANIA, GOVERNOR :

SHAPIRO, and ATTORNEY GENERAL :

HENRY, :

:

Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Smith, J. September 29, 2023

The plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, has sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis in

this action where she appears to claim in her complaint that a state, its governor, and its attorney

general were responsible for numerous issues that she has experienced over the past year. Many

of these issues appear to relate to law enforcement officers having obtained and viewed her driver’s

license and, thereafter, documented what she claims is confidential, inappropriate, and inaccurate

information about her in the Division of Motor Vehicles’ database. The plaintiff appears to believe

that this information caused her to be evicted from her rental property, created difficulties for her

when she attempted to find new places to stay, and resulted later in the impounding of her vehicle,

which she has been unable to have returned to her. Due to the loss of her residence and vehicle,

the plaintiff alleges that she has been forced to stay at various shelters and, while there, has been

sexually assaulted. The plaintiff also alleges that certain of these shelters and a few community

service organizations are part of a conspiracy to, inter alia, obtain and store her and other similarly

situated individuals’ DNA, harm or alter that DNA, and conduct experiments on them and their

DNA.

With regard to her asserted causes of action, the plaintiff raises claims for unlawful

searches and seizures, as well as an invasion of privacy, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution. She attempts to assert claims based on the Health

Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) and the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act

(“DPPA”), based on the alleged improper access to her personal health information and driver’s

license information, respectively. For relief, the plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive

relief in the nature of, inter alia, correcting any damage done to her DNA and removing any

unfavorable information from her driver’s license record.

As explained in more detail below, while the court will grant the plaintiff leave to proceed

in forma pauperis, the court will also dismiss the complaint in its entirety. More specifically, the

court will dismiss with prejudice any claims the plaintiff has against the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania pursuant to the DPPA and HIPAA, as well as any claims where she is seeking

monetary damages. The court will also dismiss with prejudice all the plaintiff’s claims possibly

based on her factually frivolous allegations regarding the purported conspiracy relating to her DNA

and experiments conducted on her. For all other claims, the court will dismiss them without

prejudice to the plaintiff filing an amended complaint to the extent she can cure the defects in those

claims that the court has identified in this memorandum opinion.

I. ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The pro se plaintiff, Susan Hester-Carrillo, commenced this action by filing an application

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint on June 1, 2023. See Doc. Nos. 1, 2.

Unfortunately, the in forma pauperis application lacked sufficient information to allow this court

to determine whether the plaintiff had the means to pay the fees to commence this case. As a result,

the court entered an order on June 14, 2023, which, inter alia, (1) denied the in forma pauperis

application without prejudice and (2) required the plaintiff to resubmit an application (or remit the

$402 fee) within 30 days of the entry of the order. See June 14, 2023 Order at 1–2, Doc. No. 4.

The plaintiff timely responded to the court’s order by filing a new in forma pauperis application

(“IFP Application”) on July 11, 2023. See Doc. No. 5.

As for the complaint, the plaintiff names as defendants: (1) the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania; (2) Governor Josh Shapiro; and (3) Michelle Henry, who is identified as the

Attorney General.1 See Compl. at ECF pp. 1–2. The plaintiff also identifies two general causes of

action in the complaint.

First, the plaintiff asserts that the “State of Pennsylvania violated [her] constitutional right

to privacy” under 18 U.S.C. § 2721(a)(2). Id. at ECF p. 5. The plaintiff contends that in accordance

with “this constitutional protection,” police officers in Pennsylvania must have “probable cause or

reasonable suspicion to require [her] driver’s license.” Id. at ECF pp. 5–6.

For the factual background of this claim, the plaintiff avers that she was referred to an

organization called Peaceful Knights in December 2022 for assistance with transitional housing

for low-income individuals in Carbon County.2 See id. at ECF p. 5. However, on December 12,

2022, an individual named Angie Schoenberger “evicted” the plaintiff despite her having paid Ms.

Schoenberger rent from December 11, 2022, through December 18, 2022. Id. In response to being

“evicted,” the plaintiff called the Lehighton Police on December 12, 2022, to request a police

1 Although these defendants are separately noted in the caption of the complaint, see Compl. at ECF p. 1, Doc. No. 2,

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Governor Shapiro are listed together as defendant no. 1 in the portion of the

form complaint where the plaintiff was instructed to provide information for each named defendant. See id. at ECF p.

2. As a result, it is unclear whether the plaintiff intended to sue both the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Governor

Shapiro. Nevertheless, the court will liberally construe the complaint as asserting claims against both the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Governor Shapiro.

2 The plaintiff does not identify the source of the referral.

escort so she could “remove [her] belongings from the housing.” Id. When they arrived, the “police

officers took [her] driver’s license information and recorded [her] vulnerable status in the DMV

database.” Id. The plaintiff asserts that “[t]his was the beginning of the defamation of [her]

character and resulting loss of reputation” that ensued “throughout the winter by police officers

and other government employees in Pennsylvania.” Id.

Since “the Pennsylvania DMV profiled [her] license,” the plaintiff alleges that she has “had

problems with police corruption and criminal harassment by government employees” throughout

Pennsylvania. Id. at ECF p. 6. For example, the plaintiff states that a week after the “profiling

incident,” “Police Officer Martin” approached her car while she was sitting in a parking lot and

asked her for her driver’s license.3 Id. Although she initially refused the request because the officer

“did not have probable cause,” Officer Martin told the plaintiff he would arrest her if she did not

provide her identification. See id. When the plaintiff showed Officer Martin her driver’s license,

Officer Martin “ran a background check and recorded more disparaging information about [her]

vulnerable status into [her] DMV record.” Id. However, the plaintiff also states that when Officer

Martin returned the license to her, he said she had “a clean record with no cause for reasonable

suspicion.” Id.

Regarding this privacy claim, the plaintiff also references HIPAA as a basis for her claim,

asserting that “federal law requires the protection of sensitive patient health information from

being disclosed.” Id. The plaintiff alleges that in December 2022, “staff from several government-

funded organizations and police officers . . . recorded highly restricted personal information and

private medical information into the DMV and other databases.” Id. She further alleges that

3 “Police Officer Martin” is not identified as a defendant, and the plaintiff has not specifically identified the law

enforcement agency that employs him.

“government-funded organizations”4 conspired and used her “private medical information to

access [her] DNA and the DNA of other homeless people” for human trafficking, and the “use of

illegal medical devices to manufacture pharmaceuticals for Johnson and Johnson and Baxter

pharmaceuticals.” Id.

Second, the plaintiff asserts that the “State of Pennsylvania violated [her] 4th Amendment

right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of [her] personal belongings and privately-

owned vehicle on December 19, 2022.” Id. at ECF p. 7. The plaintiff alleges that after DMV

records recorded her location and vulnerable status at the YMCA, her car was illegally seized and

towed from the parking lot of a public library in Allentown, Pennsylvania “without any due process

or reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed.” Id. During the seizure, the plaintiff

was in her “legally parked vehicle” when a “Police Department tow truck slammed into [her] car.”

Id. The plaintiff claims to have then showed Officer Martin her public library card and vehicle

registration, and although Officer Martin “confirmed that there was no reason to tow [her] car

based on the information that he viewed,” he allegedly told her that the “Allentown Public Library

was not ‘public.’” Id.

Between December 19, 2022, and February 3, 2023, the plaintiff attempted to ascertain the

location of her vehicle by making several phone calls to the police department.5 See id. She was

unsuccessful because the police department she contacted refused to disclose the location of her

vehicle. See id. Then, in January 2023, the plaintiff received a letter from the police department

advising her that her vehicle would be sold at an auction if she “did not pick up the vehicle within

4 The plaintiff identified the “government-funded organizations” as: (1) the YMCA; (2) Bethlehem Emergency

Shelter; (3) Daybreak; and (4) Ripples Community, Inc. See Compl. at ECF p. 6. She alleges that these organizations

“conspired with Street Medicine, a division of the Lehigh Valley Health Network and affiliated hospitals” to use her

private medical information to access her DNA. Id.

5 The plaintiff does not specifically identify which police department she called.

30 days and pay the entire towing and impoundment fee.” Id. at ECF p. 8. The plaintiff asserts that

after months of being unable to recover her car, Chevrolet repossessed it using an “ONSTAR

locator device and all of [her] private property had been searched and seized without probable

cause by police officials.” Id.

Following the seizure of her vehicle, the plaintiff has been forced to stay in emergency

shelters in Lehigh and Northampton Counties and has been sexually assaulted “by more than one

black person[,] result[ing] in sever personal injury and loss of [her] reputation.” Id. The plaintiff

also avers that she was charged over $4,000 by the unidentified police department in connection

with the illegal seizure, and her credit rating has been destroyed. See id. at ECF p. 9. She contends

that the defamation she has endured has resulted in the denial of shelter at the YMCA in Allentown

as well as the denial of housing assistance by service organizations in Hazelton, Lehighton,

Hamburg, Reading, and Allentown because “[a]ll these organizations reviewed [her] highly

restricted personal information recorded in the DMV database without authorization.” Id. at ECF

pp. 8–9. The plaintiff also contends that the loss of her reputation has resulted in “loss of income

from employment” because when potential employers conduct final background checks using her

driver’s license and social security number, they find “disparaging remarks” recorded by police in

the DMV database. Id. The plaintiff avers that the “State of Pennsylvania does not comply with

the [United States] Constitution’s protection of a private citizen’s right to privacy and right to be

free from unreasonable search and seizure of private property.” Id. at ECF p. 9.

The court notes that although the plaintiff makes additional allegations of personal injury,

those allegations are incredulous. For purposes of this opinion, the court identifies seven of them.

First, the plaintiff alleges that during her time at the YMCA and Bethlehem Emergency Shelter

(“BES”), she was stalked by a man named Michael and a woman named Wanda, who

“contaminate[d her] DNA with deadly viruses” and bacteria. See id. at ECF pp. 9–11. Second, the

plaintiff alleges that her abdomen and buttocks were inserted with “illegal electronic or medical

devices,” and avers that the illegal medical device inserted into her abdomen is known on the street

as a “SPIDER.” Id. at ECF pp. 10–11. Third, the plaintiff alleges that she has been harassed,

threatened, and mentally injured by staff at the YMCA shelter, BES, the Ripple Church, Inc.

(“RCI”), and “Street Medicine.” Id. at ECF p. 10. Fourth, the plaintiff avers that she was a “victim

of human trafficking by a pastor at RCI and “suffered numerous attempts to sell [her] original

DNA to drug cartels . . . [and] an undercover FBI agent.” Id. Fifth, the plaintiff believes that “some

of [her] original DNA is currently being stored illegally in a freezer below locations” of the service

organizations listed in the complaint. Id. Sixth, the plaintiff asserts that the YMCA, BES, RCI, and

Daybreak have been “conspiring with ‘Street Medicine of the Lehigh Valley Network’ to supply

human DNA to Johnson and Johnson and Baxter pharmaceuticals for the purpose of conducting

medical experiments on human subjects without consent or compensation.” Id. Seventh, and

finally, the plaintiff avers that a person named “Peggy,” and other Daybreak staff, accessed her

personally identifiable information in order to “contaminate [her] DNA with deadly bacteria, . . .

injure [her] spine and legs while [she] was taking a shower, . . . repeatedly commit financial fraud

. . . and even attempted to access the private medical information of [her] genetic descendants in

order to injure them as well.” Id. at ECF p. 12.

Based on these allegations as summarized by the court, the plaintiff seeks the following

forms of relief: (1) the return of all her original DNA without harm to her DNA; (2) the

reunification of her original DNA with her original body by a third-party medical professional of

her choosing; (3) payment in the amount of $4,169.52 by the Pennsylvania government for towing

and impoundment fees that resulted from the illegal seizure of her vehicle; (4) punitive damages

in the amount of $4 million against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the illegal search and

seizure of her vehicle; (5) payment for the safe removal of any electronic devices inserted into her

body; (6) payment for the repair of her injured DNA and return of her original DNA by a service-

provider of her choosing; (7) punitive damages in the amount of $50 million against the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for violations of her right to privacy, including allowing the use

of illegal medical devices in homeless shelters and failing to monitor Street Medicine inside

government-funded service organizations; and (8) removal of any disparaging remarks from her

DMV record. See id. at ECF p. 13. Along with these demands, the plaintiff attached a single-page

letter exhibit to the complaint indicating that she owes $13,506.86 under the terms of her contract

resulting from the repossession and sale of her 2017 Buick Verano on March 9, 2023. See id., Ex.

A at ECF p. 1, Doc. No. 2-1. It appears that the plaintiff circled the amount of $4,169.52 incurred

for repossession and transport of her vehicle, which she contends are the “[f]ees charged by Police

Department to [her] Chevrolet account.” Id.

II. DISCUSSION

A. The IFP Application

Regarding applications to proceed in forma pauperis,

any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or

defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein,

without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an

affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the

person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). This statute

“is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal

courts.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338

(1989). Specifically, Congress enacted the statute to ensure that administrative

court costs and filing fees, both of which must be paid by everyone else who files

a lawsuit, would not prevent indigent persons from pursuing meaningful litigation.

Deutsch[ v. United States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1084 (3d Cir. 1995)]. Toward this end, §

1915(a) allows a litigant to commence a civil or criminal action in federal court in

[sic] forma pauperis by filing in good faith an affidavit stating, among other things,

that he is unable to pay the costs of the lawsuit. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324, 109 S.Ct.

1827.

Douris v. Middletown Twp., 293 F. App’x 130, 131–32 (3d Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (footnote

omitted).

The litigant seeking to proceed in forma pauperis must establish that the litigant is unable

to pay the costs of suit. See Walker v. People Express Airlines, Inc., 886 F.2d 598, 601 (3d Cir.

1989) (“Section 1915 provides that, in order for a court to grant in forma pauperis status, the

litigant seeking such status must establish that he is unable to pay the costs of his suit.”). “In this

Circuit, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is based on a showing of indigence. [The court must]

review the affiant’s financial statement, and, if convinced that he or she is unable to pay the court

costs and filing fees, the court will grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis.” Deutsch, 67 F.3d at

1084 n.5 (internal citations omitted).

Here, after reviewing the IFP Application, it appears that the plaintiff is unable to prepay

the fees to commence this civil action. Therefore, the court will grant her leave to proceed in forma

pauperis.

B. Standard of Review – Screening of Complaint Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915

Because the court has granted the plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court

must engage in the second part of the two-part analysis and examine whether the complaint is

frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or asserts a claim

against a defendant immune from monetary relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii)

(providing that “[n]otwithstanding 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-- . . . (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”).

A complaint is frivolous under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) if it “lacks an arguable basis either

in law or fact.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, is legally baseless if it is “based on an indisputably

meritless legal theory,” Deutsch, 67 F.3d at 1085, and is factually baseless “when the facts alleged

rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33

(1992). The use of the term “frivolous” in section 1915 also “embraces not only the inarguable

legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. Thus, section

1915 accords judges “the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations

and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless[,]” including claims that

describe “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 327.

As for whether a complaint is malicious,

[a] court that considers whether an action is malicious must, in accordance with the

definition of the term “malicious,” engage in a subjective inquiry into the litigant’s

motivations at the time of the filing of the lawsuit to determine whether the action

is an attempt to vex, injure or harass the defendant.

Id. at 1086. “[A] district court may dismiss a complaint as malicious if it is plainly abusive of the

judicial process or merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Brodzki v. CBS Sports,

Civ. No. 11-841, 2012 WL 125281, at *1 (D. Del. Jan. 13, 2012).

Concerning the analysis under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the standard for dismissing a

complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to this subsection is identical to the legal standard

used when ruling on motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See

Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999) (applying Rule 12(b)(6) standard to

dismissal for failure to state claim under section 1915(e)(2)(B)). Thus, to survive dismissal, “a

complaint must contain 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) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The plaintiff’s factual allegations “must be enough to raise

a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 (citation omitted).

In addressing whether a pro se plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim, the court must

liberally construe the allegations set forth in the complaint. See Shorter v. United States, 12 F.4th

366, 374 (3d Cir. 2021) (“At this early stage of the litigation, we accept the facts alleged [in the

pro se] complaint as true, draw all reasonable inferences in [the pro se plaintiff’s] favor, and ask

only whether that complaint, liberally construed, . . . contains facts sufficient to state a plausible .

. . claim.” (citation, internal quotation marks, and all original alterations omitted)); Vogt v. Wetzel,

8 F.4th 182, 185 (3d Cir. 2021) (“We construe Vogt’s pro se filings liberally. This means we

remain flexible, especially ‘when dealing with imprisoned pro se litigants’ like Vogt.” (internal

citations omitted) (quoting Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244–45 (3d Cir.

2013))); Higgs v. Att’y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339–40 (3d Cir. 2011) (explaining that “when

presented with a pro se litigant, we have a special obligation to construe his complaint liberally”

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Yet, conclusory allegations will not suffice. See

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation

of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)).

Additionally, when construing a pro se plaintiff’s complaint, the court should always

“‘apply the relevant legal principle even when the complaint has failed to name it.’” Vogt, 8 F.4th

at 185 (quoting Mala, 704 F.3d at 244). However, pro se litigants “‘cannot flout procedural rules—

they must abide by the same rules that apply to all other litigants.’” Id. (quoting Mala, 704 F.3d at

245).

C. Screening of Claims in Complaint

In the complaint, the plaintiff generally asserts that the defendants violated her rights under

the United States Constitution and is seeking relief for those violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

This statute provides in pertinent part as follows:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or

usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to

be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction

thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in

equity, or other proper proceeding for redress[.]

42 U.S.C. § 1983. When attempting to establish a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege

and prove that a “person” deprived them of a constitutional right while acting under color of state

law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must

allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must

show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”). In

addition, a plaintiff must allege how each defendant was personally involved in the events and

occurrences giving rise to the claims. See Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir.

1988) (stating that “[a] defendant in a civil rights action must have personal involvement in the

alleged wrongs” to be liable.); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676 (“Because vicarious liability is inapplicable

to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the

official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution”); Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366,

374 (3d Cir. 2020) (“Personal involvement requires particular ‘allegations of personal direction or

of actual knowledge and acquiescence.’” (quoting Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207)). The court will address

each of the plaintiff’s claims.

1. Claims Against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for Money Damages

Although the plaintiff names the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a defendant and seeks

money damages among her several forms of relief, she has not plausibly alleged a cause of action

for damages against the Commonwealth. In this regard, states, such as the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania, are not considered “persons” for purposes of section 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t

of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989) (“[A] State is not a person within the meaning of § 1983.”).

Furthermore, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state in federal court that seek monetary

damages. See Pennhurst State Sch. And Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99–100 (1984) (“It is

clear, of course, that in the absence of consent a suit in which the State or one of its agencies or

departments is named as the defendant is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment. This

jurisdictional bar applies regardless of the nature of the relief sought.” (internal citations omitted));

A.W. v. Jersey City Public Schs., 341 F.3d 234, 238 (3d Cir. 2003) (“A state is generally entitled

to immunity in federal court from suits by private parties, including their own citizens. This

protection from suit extends to state agencies as well as state officials sued in their official

capacities for monetary damages.” (internal citations omitted)). The Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania has not waived that immunity. See 42 Pa. C.S. § 8521(b) (“Nothing contained in this

subchapter shall be construed to waive the immunity of the Commonwealth from suit in Federal

courts guaranteed by the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”).

Accordingly, the claims for money damages the plaintiff seeks to assert against the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may not proceed and will be dismissed with prejudice.

2. Claims Against Governor Shapiro and Michelle Henry

The plaintiff also names as defendants Governor Shapiro and Pennsylvania Attorney

General Michelle Henry, but presents no factual allegations linking either of them to her purported

constitutional violations. Without allegations of personal involvement, see Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207;

Dooley, 957 F.3d at 374; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676, the court must dismiss the claims against

Government Shapiro and Attorney General Henry for the failure to state a claim.6

3. Additional Reasons Why Claims in Complaint Fail to State a Claim

At this point, the court has essentially completed screening the complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(2) and determined that the plaintiff does not have any viable claims against any of the

three named defendants in the complaint. As will be explained later, the court will grant the

plaintiff leave to amend her complaint should she be able to assert a plausible claim against an

appropriate defendant. Should the plaintiff decide to file an amended complaint, she should be

aware of the following deficiencies with these additional claims.

a. Right to Privacy Claims

As noted above, the plaintiff believes that the “State of Pennsylvania” violated her right to

privacy under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2721(a)(2), asserting

that police in Pennsylvania must have “probable cause or reasonable suspicion to require [her]

driver’s license.” Compl. at ECF pp. 5–6. The plaintiff also avers that “police officers took [her]

driver’s license information and recorded [her] vulnerable status in the DMV database” and, as a

result, “the Pennsylvania DMV profiled [her] license.” Id. Based on these allegations, the court

understands the plaintiff to be asserting a claim under the DPPA against the Commonwealth of

6 To the extent that the complaint can be construed to raise claims against Governor Shapiro and Attorney General

Henry in their official capacities, any such claims are actually claims against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and

would be subject to dismissal for the same reasons the court is dismissing the claims against the Commonwealth. See

Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165–66 (1985) (“Official-capacity suits . . . ‘generally represent only another way

of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.’” (quoting Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City

of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978))). Although a plaintiff may sue state officials in their official capacities where

the plaintiff seeks prospective injunctive relief to stop an ongoing violation of federal law, see Ex Parte Young, 209

U.S. 123 (1908); Pa. Fed’n of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Inc. v. Hess, 297 F.3d 310, 323 (3d Cir. 2002), nothing in this

complaint can be interpreted as seeking prospective injunctive relief against Governor Shapiro and Attorney General

Henry.

Pennsylvania and a general section 1983 claim for invasion of privacy. The court will address each

in turn.

i. DPPA Claim

Congress enacted the DPPA “as a public safety measure, designed to prevent stalkers and

criminals from utilizing motor vehicle records to acquire information about their victims,” and to

stop “the States’ common practice of selling personal information to businesses engaged in direct

marketing and solicitation.” Dahlstrom v. Sun-Times Media, LLC, 777 F.3d 937, 944 (7th Cir.

2015) (quoting Maracich v. Spears, 570 U.S. 48, 57 (2013)); see also Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S.

141, 146 (2000) (“The [DPPA] also regulates the resale and redisclosure of drivers’ personal

information by private persons who have obtained that information from a state DMV.” (emphasis

added)). In light of these purposes, the DPPA generally provides that

[a] State department of motor vehicles, and any officer, employee, or contractor

thereof, shall not knowingly disclose or otherwise make available to any person or

entity:

(1) personal information, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2725(3), about any individual

obtained by the department in connection with a motor vehicle record, except

as provided in subsection (b) of this section . . . .”); or

(2) highly restricted personal information, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2725(4),

about any individual obtained by the department in connection with a motor

vehicle record, without the express consent of the person to whom such

information applies, except uses permitted in subsections (b)(1), (b)(4), (b)(6),

and (b)(9) . . . .

18 U.S.C. § 2721(a) (internal footnote omitted).7 As shown by these provisions, the Act’s

restrictions apply to a “State department of motor vehicles, and any officer, employee, or

7 The DPPA defines “personal information” as “information that identifies an individual, including an individual’s

photograph, social security number, driver identification number, name, address (but not the 5-digit zip code),

telephone number, and medical or disability information, but does not include information on vehicular accidents,

driving violations, and driver’s status.” 18 U.S.C. § 2725(3). It also defines “highly restricted personal information”

as “an individual’s photograph or image, social security number, medical or disability information[.]” Id. § 2725(4).

contractor thereof.” Id. Yet, despite the reference to a state’s department of motor vehicles, the

DPPA expressly precludes civil suits against states and state agencies. See id. § 2724(a) (“A person

who knowingly obtains, discloses or uses personal information, from a motor vehicle record, for a

purpose not permitted under this chapter shall be liable to the individual to whom the information

pertains, who may bring a civil action in a United States district court.” (emphasis added)); id. §

2725(2) (defining “person” as “an individual, organization or entity, but does not include a State

or agency thereof” (emphasis added)); see also Rollins v. City of Albert Lea, 79 F. Supp. 3d 946,

955 (D. Minn. 2014) (explaining that “while an individual may seek injunctive relief under § 1983

against a state official acting in his official capacity, the DPPA expressly precludes civil suits

against states and state agencies,” and citing Heartland Academy Community Church v. Waddle,

427 F.3d 525, 530 (8th Cir. 2005) for its “finding, in a § 1983 case, that there is an exception to

sovereign immunity for state officials acting in their official capacity ‘where the relief sought is

prospective and not compensatory’”). Accordingly, the plaintiff’s claims under the DPPA against

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania cannot proceed, and the court will dismiss them with

prejudice.

ii. Section 1983 Claim for Invasion of Privacy

In determining whether the plaintiff has plausibly pleaded a constitutional violation of a

right to privacy, the court notes that she did not identify any specific constitutional amendment in

the amended complaint. Nevertheless, the court will analyze her factual allegations to ascertain

whether she has plausibly alleged that her rights under the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments were

violated.

Regarding the Fourth Amendment, it generally guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be

secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

U.S. Const. amend. IV. “The Fourth Amendment is violated when the state conducts an

unreasonable search or seizure that infringes upon a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Talley v.

Mazzocca, 796 F. App’x 61, 63 (3d Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S.

347, 361 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring)).8 Although the Fourth Amendment is concerned with

protecting individuals’ privacy, it

cannot be translated into a general constitutional ‘right to privacy.’ Th[e Fourth]

Amendment protects individual privacy against certain kinds of governmental

intrusion, but its protections go further, and often have nothing to do with privacy

at all. Other provisions of the Constitution protect personal privacy from other

forms of governmental invasion. But the protection of a person’s general right to

privacy—his right to be let alone by other people—is, like the protection of his

property and of his very life, left largely to the law of the individual States.

Katz, 389 U.S. at 350–51 (internal footnotes omitted).

Here, it appears that the plaintiff voluntarily provided her driver’s license information to a

police officer after she had phoned the police department and requested assistance during her

eviction. See Compl. at ECF p. 5 (“When I called the Lehighton police on December 12th to

request a police escort to remove my belongings from the housing, police officers took my driver’s

license information and recorded my vulnerable status in the DMV database.”). Under these

8 A search, in the criminal procedure context, has been defined as:

An examination of a person’s body, property, or other area that the person would reasonably be

expected to consider as private, conducted by a law-enforcement officer for the purpose of finding

evidence of a crime. • Because the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches (as well as

seizures), a search cannot ordinarily be conducted without probable cause.

“It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and

restrains his freedom to walk away, he has ‘seized’ that person. And it is nothing

less than sheer torture of the English language to suggest that a careful exploration

of the outer surfaces of a person’s clothing all over his or her body in an attempt

to find weapons is not a ‘search.’” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868,

1877 (1968).

Search, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). A “seizure” has been defined as “[t]he act or an instance of taking

possession of a person or property by legal right or process; esp., in constitutional law, a confiscation or arrest that

may interfere with a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy.” Seizure, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).

circumstances, the plaintiff “has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information [s]he

voluntarily turns over to third parties.” Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743–44 (1979). In

addition, courts analyzing privacy standards under the Fourth Amendment in the context of

driver’s license information have concluded that there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in

such information. See, e.g., Caldwell v. City of Newfield, Civ. A. No. 05-1913, 2007 WL 1038695,

at *4 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2007) (rejecting claim that police officer violated plaintiff’s Fourth

Amendment rights when officer obtained information about him from police dispatcher because

“[p]laintiff had no expectation of privacy in information already possessed by the government.

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in publicly available information on [p]laintiff, his

driver’s license, and his vehicle’s registration. Moreover, the information requested was

information that belonged to the state[,] not [p]laintiff. The state issued his driver’s license and his

vehicle registration. The state would also have issued any legal process such as warrants for arrest.

Simply, the information sought and obtained was not private or confidential and belonged to the

state, not [p]laintiff” (citations omitted)); Scheetz v. Morning Call, Inc., 946 F.2d 202, 206–07 (3d

Cir. 1991) (“We conclude that the information contained in a police report is not protected by the

confidentiality branch of the constitutional right to privacy. . . . When police are called, a private

disturbance loses much of its private character.”); Holder v. City of Allentown, 151 F.R.D. 552,

554 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (concluding that “[b]ecause plaintiff could have no reasonable expectation of

privacy in the address listed in his motor vehicle registration records—which is of public record

and available to anyone who requests the information—he has not stated a cause of action for the

infringement of his right to privacy under either the United States Constitution or Article I, Section

1 of Pennsylvania Constitution” (citations omitted)). Accordingly, the plaintiff has not plausibly

pleaded a claim for a violation of a right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment.

Turning now to the Fourteenth Amendment, the law applicable to claims about purported

violations of a constitutional right to privacy under this amendment is as follows:

“The United States Constitution does not mention an explicit right to

privacy and the United States Supreme Court has never proclaimed that such a

generalized right exists.” C.N. v. Ridgewood Bd. of Educ., 430 F.3d 159, 178 (3d

Cir. 2005). But see Sterling v. Borough of Minersville, 232 F.3d 190, 193 (3d Cir.

2000) (stating that the Supreme Court “acknowledged the individual’s

constitutional right to privacy” in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct.

1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965)). The Supreme Court, however, has found certain

constitutional “zones of privacy.” C.N., 430 F.3d at 178 (citing Roe v. Wade, 410

U.S. 113, 152–53, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973)). From these zones of

privacy, we have articulated two types of privacy interests rooted in the Fourteenth

Amendment. Nunez v. Pachman, 578 F.3d 228, 231 n.7 (3d Cir. 2009); see also

Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 564 (3d Cir. 2011); C.N., 430 F.3d at 178. The

first privacy interest is the “individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal

matters,” and the second is the “interest in independence in making certain kinds of

important decisions.” C.N., 430 F.3d at 178; see also Malleus, 641 F.3d at 564;

Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 121 (3d Cir. 2000). The first privacy interest is at

issue in this matter.

“‘The right not to have intimate facts concerning one’s life disclosed

without one’s consent’ is ‘a venerable [right] whose constitutional significance we

have recognized in the past.’” C.N., 430 F.3d at 179 (quoting Bartnicki v. Vopper,

200 F.3d 109, 122 (3d Cir. 1999)). Justice Brandeis, in dissent, famously referred

to this as “the right to be let alone.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478,

48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

The touchstone of constitutional privacy protection is whether the

information at issue is “within an individual’s reasonable expectations of

confidentiality.” Malleus, 641 F.3d at 564; see also C.N., 430 F.3d at 179; Fraternal

Order of Police, Lodge No. 5 v. City of Phila., 812 F.2d 105, 112 (3d Cir.1987)

(“Fraternal Order of Police”). The more intimate or personal the information, the

more reasonable the expectation is that it will remain confidential. Fraternal Order

of Police, 812 F.2d at 112–13 (citing United States v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.,

638 F.2d 570, 577 & n. 5 (3d Cir. 1980)); see also Malleus, 641 F.3d at 564; C.N.,

430 F.3d at 179. Indeed, the “federal constitution ... protects against public

disclosure [of] only highly personal matters representing the most intimate aspects

of human affairs,” thereby shielding from public scrutiny “only that information

which involves deeply rooted notions of fundamental personal interests derived

from the Constitution.” Nunez, 578 F.3d at 232 (emphasis omitted) (citation and

quotation marks omitted).

We have found the following types of information to be protected: a private

employee’s medical information that was sought by the government; medical,

financial and behavioral information relevant to a police investigator; a public

employee’s prescription record; a minor student’s pregnancy status; sexual

orientation; and an inmate’s HIV-positive status. Malleus, 641 F.3d at 565 (citing

cases and explaining that information encompassed by the constitutional right to

privacy may be separated into categories reflecting sexual, medical and some

financial information).

Doe v. Luzerne County, 660 F.3d 169, 175–76 (3d Cir. 2011).

As to any Fourteenth Amendment invasion of privacy claim, the plaintiff has only alleged

that “police officers took [her] driver’s license information and recorded [her] vulnerable status in

the DMV database.” Compl. at ECF p. 5. She does not specifically identify the officers or the

department for which they were employed, what information was allegedly recorded, or whether

she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in what was allegedly recorded. To the extent that the

plaintiff is referring to the typical information contained on one’s driver’s license, she has failed

to state a plausible claim for a constitutional violation. See Mallak v. Aitkin Cnty., 9 F. Supp. 3d

1046, 1062 (D. Minn. 2014) (“No case has yet found that a constitutional right to privacy exists

under the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment for the type of information typically found in driver’s

licenses and protected by the DPPA (address, color photograph, date of birth, weight, height, and

eye color).” (citations omitted)); see also Rasmusson v. Chisago Cnty., 991 F. Supp. 2d 1065,

1074–76 (D. Minn. 2014) (“In this case, Plaintiff alleges a privacy interest in her driver’s license

information [under the Fourteenth and Fourth Amendments]. However, the only information

Plaintiff claims was accessed through her driver’s license record was her address, color

photograph, date of birth, weight, height, eye color, driver identification number, and driving

record. With the exception of Plaintiff’s driving record, all of this information is included on the

face of a driver’s license, and individuals show their driver’s licenses to strangers on a daily basis.

Moreover, much of this information can be obtained by looking at an individual or by reviewing

public records. Thus, the disclosure of this information cannot be considered shockingly degrading

or egregiously humiliating. Nor could Plaintiff, based on the public nature of this information,

legitimately expect that it would remain confidential. Accordingly, . . . this information does not

warrant constitutional protection because an individual does not have a legitimate expectation of

privacy in it.”). Therefore, any claims that the plaintiff seeks to assert arising from the alleged

accessing of her driver’s license information, and the disclosure of that information under either

the Fourteenth or Fourth Amendments, are implausible. Consequently, the court will dismiss them

for the failure to state a claim.

b. Claims Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act

To the extent that the plaintiff seeks to bring claims under HIPAA, that Act does not

provide for a federal private right of action. See Johnson v. WPIC, 782 F. App’x 169, 170–71 (3d

Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (“[A]s the District Court explained, HIPAA does not create a private right

of action.” (citing Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569, 571–72 (5th Cir. 2006))); Wassef v. Tibben, 68

F.4th 1083, 1089 (8th Cir. 2023) (“HIPAA imposes civil and criminal penalties for unauthorized

disclosure of medical information and grants the Secretary of HHS authority to seek those

penalties. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320d-5, d-6; Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569, 571 (5th Cir. 2006). The

Fifth Circuit in Acara, 470 F.3d at 572, and every other circuit to consider the question, have held

that there is no implied private right of action for HIPAA violations because this specific grant of

enforcement authority reflects congressional intent to preclude private enforcement.”); Baum v.

Keystone Mercy Health Plan, 826 F. Supp. 2d 718, 721 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (“There is no federal

private right of action under HIPPA [sic].” (citations omitted)). Accordingly, the court will dismiss

with prejudice all claims in the complaint in which the plaintiff asserts HIPAA violations.

c. Claims Concerning the Seizure of the Plaintiff’s Vehicle

The plaintiff asserts that the “State of Pennsylvania violated [her Fourth] Amendment

constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of [her] personal belongings

and privately-owned vehicle on December 19, 2022.” Compl. at ECF p. 7. Her assertion is based

on the allegation that after DMV records indicated her location and vulnerable status, her car was

illegally seized and towed from the parking lot of a public library in Allentown, Pennsylvania

“without any due process or reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed.” Id. These

allegations are insufficient to plead a plausible Fourth Amendment claim.

“The impoundment of an automobile is a Fourth Amendment seizure.” Draper v. Darby

Twp. Police Dep’t, Civ. A. No. 10-1080, 2012 WL 93178, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2012); Miranda

v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The impoundment of an automobile is a

seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”). “As a general rule, a law enforcement

officer may only seize property pursuant to a warrant based on probable cause. Police may,

however, exercise discretion to impound a vehicle ‘so long as that discretion is exercised according

to standard criteria.’” Draper, 2012 WL 93178, at *2 (quoting Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367,

375 (1987)). To determine if law enforcement violated the Fourth Amendment, the court

“consider[s] the existence of probable cause via a ‘common sense approach’ based on the totality

of the circumstances, and viewed from the perspective of an objectively reasonable police officer.”

Young v. City of Pittsburgh, 562 F. App’x 135, 140 (3d Cir. 2014) (internal citation omitted); see

also United States v. Smith, 522 F.3d 305, 311–15 (3d Cir. 2008) (analyzing whether police

officer’s impoundment of vehicle violated Fourth Amendment by examining reasonableness of

police officer’s actions). The standard is “not whether the person arrested in fact committed the

offense but whether the arresting officers had probable cause to believe the person arrested had

committed the offense.” Dowling v. City of Philadelphia, 855 F.2d 136, 141 (3d Cir. 1988).

Probable cause exists if “at the moment the arrest was made . . . the facts and circumstances within

[the officer’s] knowledge and of which [they] had reasonably trustworthy information were

sufficient to warrant a prudent [person] in believing” that the plaintiff had violated the law. Hunter

v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 228 (1991) (quoting Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964)).

In this case, the plaintiff has provided very few factual allegations about her unreasonable

seizure claim and, as such, she has failed to plead a plausible Fourth Amendment claim. In this

regard, the plaintiff has not specifically identified the individuals involved in the seizure, and she

has not alleged that they acted without regard to standard criteria when they arranged for her car

to be towed. Additionally, the plaintiff fails to include any factual allegations regarding the reason

the vehicle was towed, or which person or entity directed that her vehicle be towed in the first

instance. In fact, it is unclear from her allegations whether her vehicle was towed by the police, or

whether it was repossessed by a different entity. See Compl., Ex. A, Doc. No. 2-1 (indicating that

plaintiff owed $13,506.96 under terms of her contract resulting from repossession and sale of her

2017 Buick Verano on March 9, 2023).

In addition, to the extent that the plaintiff is attempting to assert a claim for a procedural

due process violation, the court recognizes that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment provides that states shall not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without

due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. To state a plausible procedural due process

claim, a plaintiff must allege that “(1) [they] were deprived of an individual interest that is

encompassed within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of life, liberty, or property, and (2)

the procedures available to [them] did not provide due process of law.” Hill v. Borough of

Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225, 234 (3d Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, the plaintiff appears to assert a constitutionally cognizable property interest in her

vehicle. See Santiago v. City of Chicago, 446 F. Supp. 3d 348, 357 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (“The parties

here do not dispute that the City deprived Santiago of a property interest in her vehicle when it

towed her van.”); see also Goard v. Crown Auto, Inc., No. 15-CV-35, 2017 WL 2423521, at *5

(W.D. Va. June 2, 2017) (“As the individual who actually towed the Plaintiff’s vehicle, Snyder

undoubtedly deprived Plaintiff of her property interest in her vehicle.”). She also alleges that she

was deprived of the vehicle without any due process. See Compl. at ECF p. 7. These facts alone

are insufficient to state a plausible procedural due process claim because even though the plaintiff

had a protected property interest in her vehicle, she has failed to allege that “the procedures

available to [her] did not provide due process of law.” Hill, 455 F.3d at 234 (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted); see also Mader v. Union Twp., No. 22-1425, 2022 WL 17546953, at *2

(3d Cir. Dec. 9, 2022) (“To the extent that the Maders have alleged a procedural-due-process claim,

they have failed to show that the procedures available to them—which included both an

opportunity to make their case in person to the Township and then, if necessary, to seek relief in

state court—was constitutionally inadequate.” (citations omitted)); Willard v. Pa. Soc. for the

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 525 F. App’x 217, 221 (3d Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal of

complaint where plaintiff failed to allege that, inter alia, available procedures were inadequate).

In addition, it does not appear that the plaintiff alleges that she availed herself of the processes

available to her upon the impoundment of her vehicle. See Alvin v. Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107, 116 (3d

Cir. 2000) (“A due process violation is not complete when the deprivation occurs; it is not complete

unless and until the State fails to provide due process. If there is a process on the books that appears

to provide due process, the plaintiff cannot skip that process and use the federal courts as a means

to get back what [they] want[].” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also

Frompovicz v. Hissner, 434 F. Supp. 3d 269, 279 (E.D. Pa. 2020) (concluding defendants were

entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s procedural due process claim because plaintiff failed

to avail himself of process available to him). Accordingly, the plaintiff has failed to plead a

plausible procedural due process claim, and the court will dismiss it without prejudice.

d. Factually Frivolous Claims

As already discussed, the plaintiff alleges that following the seizure of her vehicle, she has

been forced to stay in emergency shelters and has been stalked by individuals who “contaminate[d

her] DNA with deadly viruses” and bacteria. See Compl. at ECF pp. 9–11. She also alleges that

her abdomen and buttocks were inserted with “illegal electronic or medical devices,” she was a

“victim of attempted human trafficking,” and she “suffered numerous attempts to sell [her] original

DNA to drug cartels . . . [and] an undercover FBI agent.” Id. The plaintiff believes that “some of

[her] original DNA is currently being stored illegally in a freezer” and that certain service

organizations have been “conspiring with ‘Street Medicine of the Lehigh Valley Network’ to

supply human DNA to Johnson and Johnson and Baxter pharmaceuticals for the purpose of

conducting medical experiments on human subjects without consent or compensation.” Id. She

also avers that staff members have accessed her personally identifiable information in order to

“contaminate [her] DNA with deadly bacteria, . . . injure [her] spine and legs while [she] was

taking a shower, . . . repeatedly commit financial fraud . . . and even attempted to access the private

medical information of [her] genetic descendants in order to injure them as well.” Id. at ECF p. 12.

These allegations are wholly incredible and lack a basis in fact.

“[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level

of the irrational or the wholly incredible . . . .” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). This

finding also requires the court to dismiss these allegations as factually baseless. See, e.g., Price v.

FBI, Civ. A. No. 20-CV-3015, 2020 WL 4368063, at *3 (E.D. Pa. July 30, 2020) (concluding that

pro se plaintiff’s allegations were factually frivolous where plaintiff alleged that “numerous law

enforcement agencies, attorneys, prison officials, and medical professionals have used

neurological and psychological technology to control the ‘four basic groups of his brain and mental

functions’ beginning in June 1978 and continuing through the present,” and “that the use of this

‘technology’ and ‘mind control’ has caused him numerous impairments and drove him to criminal

and erratic behavior”); Caterbone v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 698 F. App’x 678, 679 (3d Cir. 2017) (per

curiam) (dismissing appeal as lacking an arguable basis in fact where underlying allegations were

based on pro se plaintiff’s assertion that he was “victim of U.S. sponsored mind control and

cointelpro harassment program”); DeGrazia v. FBI, 316 F. App’x 172, 172 (3d Cir. 2009) (per

curiam) (concluding that complaint was factually frivolous where pro se plaintiff alleged that “at

the age of four, he was the victim of a government-run, Nazi designed genetic experiment which

caused his body to combine with reptile DNA, and that he has since experienced harmful side

effects which pose a threat to others”); Dodson v. Haley, No. 16-6196, 2017 WL 3224485, at *1

(6th Cir. May 17, 2017) (affirming district court’s dismissal of action for being frivolous where

pro se plaintiff “alleged that correctional officers and family members of the victim whom he was

convicted of murdering installed ‘eye cameras’ and ‘thought-processing devices’ in his body that

permitted the defendants to read his legal mail and monitor his food so that they could tamper with

it”); Bordages v. United States Just. Dep’t, No. 15-2708, 2015 WL 9267086, at *3 (W.D. Tenn.

Nov. 5, 2015) (“The allegations that the federal government conspired with a private corporation

and a United States District Judge to steal Bordages’s DNA, genetics, and stem cells using a nano

probe and to perform unauthorized medical experiments on him are factually frivolous.”), report

and recommendation adopted, No. 15-2708, 2015 WL 9295994 (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 18, 2015).

III. CONCLUSION

As set forth above, the court will grant the plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but

will also dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Concerning this dismissal, the court will dismiss

with prejudice any claims for monetary damages or claims under the DPPA the plaintiff sought to

assert against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania because they are implausible and the defects in

those claims cannot be cured. See Grayson v. Mayview St. Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002)

(stating general rule that court should grant leave to amend unless doing so would be futile);

Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 252 (3d Cir. 2007) (“[I]n

civil rights cases district courts must offer amendment—irrespective of whether it is requested—

when dismissing a case for failure to state a claim unless doing so would be inequitable or futile.”).

The court will also dismiss with prejudice any claims the plaintiff sought to assert under HIPAA

because there is no private right of action for damages under that Act. The court will further dismiss

any claims based on the factual allegations the court identified above as being factually frivolous.

As for the remainder of the complaint, the court will dismiss any remaining claims without

prejudice for the failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Since the court at this

time cannot state that the plaintiff cannot cure the defects the court has identified in those

remaining claims, the court will grant the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.

The court will enter a separate order.9

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Edward G. Smith

EDWARD G. SMITH, J.

9 This order will provide further instruction to the plaintiff about filing an amended complaint.