Robinson v. Kelly et al
| Lakiea Robinson |
| Sarena Kelly and John Nascimento |
| 3:2024cv00173 |
| February 7, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Vernon D Oliver |
| Robert M Spector |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 22, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 15
ORDER denying as moot #13 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. In light of the Court dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 14), Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel is denied as moot. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 02/22/2024. (Dao, J)
|
|
Filing 14
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT. Pro se Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis at ECF No. #12 is hereby GRANTED. Although Plaintiff has established that she is unable to pay the filing fee, Plaintiff's Complaint at ECF No. #1 is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) as it does not allege any facts that state a plausible claim for relief. Plaintiff Lakiea Robinson commenced this action in January 2024, alleging that Defendants Sarena Kelly and John Nascimento violated her privacy rights. Plaintiff alleges federal question jurisdiction as a basis for this case under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"). (ECF No. #1 at 2.)Under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B), a court shall dismiss a complaint when "the action... is frivolous or malicious;... fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or... seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." In evaluating whether a complaint survives this analysis, a court must "accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences" in a plaintiff's favor. Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593, 596 (2d Cir. 2000). Pro se complaints "must be construed liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest." Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006). But, to survive dismissal, a complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).Here, the Complaint must be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to state a HIPAA claim, the sole federal claim in this case. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Kelly violated HIPAA by sharing Plaintiff's private information during a conversation with Plaintiff's former employer, Coca Cola, without Plaintiff's consent. (ECF No. #1 at 5.) Neither the Complaint nor its exhibits include allegations regarding how Defendant Nascimento violated HIPAA. (See generally ECF No. #1 .) Nevertheless, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's HIPAA claim against the defendants must be dismissed because "enforcement of HIPAA is reserved exclusively to the Secretary of Health and Human Services." Rzayeva v. United States, 492 F. Supp. 2d 60, 83 (D. Conn. 2007). While HIPAA prohibits the disclosure of medical records without a patient's consent, that statute "does not expressly create a private cause of action for individuals to enforce this prohibition." Meadows v. United Servs., Inc., 963 F.3d 240, 244 (2d Cir. 2020). "In other words, individuals cannot directly file lawsuits for HIPAA violations." Braswell v. Pelchat, No. 3:20-CV-1428 (AVC), 2021 WL 11580927, at *4 (D. Conn. Feb. 12, 2021). Instead, a party may "lodge a written complaint with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Office for Civil Rights, who has the discretion to investigate the complaint and impose sanctions, both civil and criminal." Orr v. Carrington, No. 3:18-CV-1986 (MPS), 2019 WL 176958, at *3 (D. Conn. Jan. 11, 2019). Accordingly, Plaintiff's HIPAA claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim. Leave to amend is denied because it is apparent that, even under a liberal reading of the complaint, repleading the HIPAA claim would be futile. Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). To the extent that Plaintiff brings state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those state law causes of actions because the sole federal claim is dismissed. Doody v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 3:19-CV-1191 (VDO), 2024 WL 20706, at *8 (D. Conn. Jan. 2, 2024). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915 (a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case and to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 02/22/2024. (Dao, J)
|
| Filing 13 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel by Lakiea Robinson. (Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 12 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Lakiea Robinson. (Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE: ANY MOTIONS PENDING AT THE TIME OF TRANSFER MUST BE REFILED IN OUR DISTRICT. Signed by Clerk on 2/7/2024.(Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 10 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, a disclosure statement must be filed with a party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the Court and must be supplemented if any required information changes during the case. Signed by Clerk on 2/7/2024.(Gaskins, A) |
|
Filing 9
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 2/7/2024.(Gaskins, A)
|
|
Filing 8
Standing Protective Order Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 2/7/2024.(Gaskins, A)
|
| Filing 7 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. (Gaskins, A) |
|
Filing 6
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 4/7/2024 Discovery due by 8/8/2024 Dispositive Motions due by 9/12/2024 Signed by Clerk on 2/7/2024.(Gaskins, A)
|
| Filing 5 Case electronically transferred in from District of New York Southern; Case Number 1:24-cv-00625. Electronic file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. |
| Judge Vernon D. Oliver and Judge Robert M. Spector added. (Freberg, B) |
| MAILING RECEIPT: Document No: 4. Mailed to: Lakiea Robinson 230 Bear Paw Road Bridgeport, CT 06606. (mt) |
| CASE TRANSFERRED OUT ELECTRONICALLY from the U.S.D.C. Southern District of New York to the United States District Court - District of Connecticut. (tro) |
|
Filing 4
TRANSFER ORDER: The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Whether Plaintiff should be permitted to proceed further without prepayment of fees is a determination to be made by the transferee court. A summons shall not issue from this Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of pro bono counsel (ECF 3). This order closes this case. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 1/29/2024) (va) Transmission to Office of the Clerk of Court for processing.
|
| Filing 3 APPLICATION for the Court to Request Pro Bono Counsel. Document filed by Lakiea Robinson. (sac) |
| Filing 2 REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Document filed by Lakiea Robinson. (sac) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Sarena Kelly, John Nascimento. Document filed by Lakiea Robinson. (sac) |
| NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT - SUA SPONTE to Judge Laura Taylor Swain. Judge Unassigned is no longer assigned to the case. (vba) |
| Case Designated ECF. (sac) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
