(PC) James v. County of Sacramento ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD EUGENE JAMES, No. 2:24-cv-0063 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a Sacramento County Jail pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and seeking relief 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As plaintiff has submitted a 21 declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request will be granted. 22 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 23 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the 24 initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. 25 Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding 26 month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by 27 the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account 28 exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 1 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 2 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 3 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 4 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 5 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 6 Plaintiff’s claims center around the release of at least some of his medical records from 7 some unidentified person at the Sacramento County Jail to attorney Nicole Cahill. Ms. Cahill 8 works for the law firm Longyear & Larva and represents Sacramento County Jail employees, 9 including medical professionals, in James v. County of Sacramento, 2:22-cv-2193 DAD JDP, a 10 case pending in this court. Plaintiff identifies three defendants: the County of Sacramento, D. 11 Longyear, and Ms. Cahill. 12 As for the County of Sacramento, municipalities cannot be held vicariously liable under § 13 1983 for the actions of their employees. Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 585 at 691, 14 694 (1978). “Instead, it is when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by 15 its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, 16 inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.” Id. at 694. 17 Plaintiff fails to point to anything suggesting that any of his federal rights were violated through 18 execution of a County of Sacramento policy or custom. 19 Plaintiff also fails to point to anything suggesting Longyear violated any of his rights. 20 There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or 21 connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation, Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 22 362 (1976), and plaintiff fails to point to any such link or connection with respect to Longyear. 23 As to Ms. Cahill, apparently, she obtained and reviewed some of plaintiff’s medical 24 records from the Sacramento County Jail. Plaintiff fails to show how this amounts to a violation 25 of any federal right. Plaintiff asserts a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but that is not the case 26 as the records of the Sacramento County Jail do not belong to him, but to Sacramento County. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Plaintiff asserts violations of California’s Constitution, but the court would not have 2 jurisdiction over a claim arising under California law unless the claim is sufficiently related to a 3 cognizable federal claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 4 Plaintiff also makes reference to “HIPPA” in his complaint but does not identify 5 specifically how his rights under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act were 6 violated. Furthermore, HIPAA does not provide for a private right of action. Webb v. Smart 7 Document Solutions, LLC, 499 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff is not permitted to 8 bring a claim in a district court for a violation of HIPPA. 9 For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which 10 relief can be granted. Therefore, the complaint will be dismissed. Plaintiff will be given one 11 opportunity to state a claim upon he can proceed in an amended complaint. Plaintiff is informed 12 that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. 13 Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any 14 prior pleading. 15 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 5 & 7) is 17 granted. 18 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees 19 shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Sacramento County Sheriff 20 filed concurrently herewith. 21 3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 22 4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 23 complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 24 Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket 25 number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 | amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action 2 || be dismissed. 3 | Dated: February 21, 2024 Card Kt | ([z4 □□□ 4 CAROLYNK.DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 fi 9 jame0063.14 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28