Opinion
1:22-CV-00245-RAL
01-09-2023
KERRY LEE SWITZER JR., Plaintiff, v. VENANGO COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
IN RE ECF NO. 1
RICHARD A. LANZILLO CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that the Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED.
II. Report
Plaintiff Kerry Lee Switzer, Jr., proceeding pro se, filed a civil complaint against Venango County Human Services. ECF No. 1. In the pleading, Switzer alleges unspecified violations of his “HIPAA rights and their privacy policy video evidence.” Id. The Court ordered service of the Complaint on January 5, 2023, but service upon the Defendant has yet to be effectuated. See ECF No. 5. Upon further review, the Court will dismiss the Complaint because it fails to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8's pleading standard and does not state any viable claims.
Under the Federal Rules, every civil complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Civil complaints need not include “detailed factual allegations,” but there must be enough factual information “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Pleadings filed by pro se litigants are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). But even pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules. See Holley v. Dep't of Veteran Affairs, 165 F.3d 244, 247-48 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing Haines, 505 U.S. at 520-21).
Switzer's Complaint fails to do so. The Complaint's sole factual allegations are that “Jake Mcvoy called about an anonymous call concerning my ‘health' as no one but probation or my immediate relatives knew I was released from program is a direct violation of my HIPAA rights and their privacy policy video evidence.” ECF No. 1, p. 3. In the margin, Switzer wrote “July 28 2022.” Id. This statement does not include any factual allegations that explain where or how he was harmed by the Defendant. His failure to identify the Defendant's action and the passing reference to a “HIPAA” violation is insufficient to state a claim under that statute.
Here, the Court assumes Switzer implicates the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) of 1996.
Switzer's Complaint should therefore be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8(a). Dismissing a case sua sponte is an unusual step, but it is one the Court has the power to do when a plaintiff fails to comply with procedural rules. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (Rule 41 permits sua sponte dismissals by the court).
Additionally, the Court “[n]otwithstanding any filing fee,” may dismiss a case sua sponte when a complaint “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Here, Switzer asserts a violation of HIPAA. See ECF No. 1., p. 3. He seeks $3,000,000.00 and protection “against authoritative retribution and interference with” other cases he has filed in this Court. Id. To the extent raised, such a claim is dismissed because HIPAA does not provide for a private right of action. See Beckett v. Grant. 2022 WL 485221 at *3 (3d Cir. Feb. 17, 2022) (per curiam) (“HIPAA does not provide a private cause of action.”) (citing Meadows v. United Servs., 963 F.3d 240, 244 (2d Cir. 2020)); Dodd v. Jones, 623 F.3d 563, 569 (8th Cir. 2010) (same); Webb v. Smart Document Solutions, LLC, 499 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2007) (same); Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569, 571-72 (5th Cir. 2006) (same)). Because this Complaint fails to state a viable claim, dismissal is also warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Accordingly, Switzer's Complaint and this civil action should be DISMISSED.
III. Notice to Parties Regarding Objections
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the parties must seek review by the district court by filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the Objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the Objections to respond thereto. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Extensions of time will not be granted. Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).