Cassells v. McNeal, 061819 FED9, 18-16381
|Party Name:||KEITH MICHAEL CASSELLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. C. McNEAL, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||June 18, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted June 11, 2019 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, No. 2:15-cv-00313-KJM-AC Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Keith Michael Cassells appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging improper access to and use of his medical records. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Cassells's informational privacy claims because Cassells failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Seaton v. Mayberg, 610 F.3d 530, 534-35 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that a proper governmental interest may overcome a conditional right to medical privacy).
The district court properly dismissed Cassells's Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act claim ("HIPAA") because there is no private right of action under the statute. See Seaton, 610 F.3d at 533 ("HIPAA . . . provides no private right of action." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP