Keith Cassells v. L. McNeal

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEITH MICHAEL CASSELLS, No. 18-16381
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00313-KJM-AC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
L. C. McNEAL, Correctional Officer; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2019**
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.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying joinder of new
defendants and new claims related to a stolen laptop because these claims do not
arise “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 18, 20; United States v. Bowen, 172 F.3d 682, 688
(9th Cir. 1999) (standard of review).
We reject as unsupported by the record Cassells’s contention of misconduct
by California Department and Corrections and Rehabilitation employees.
AFFIRMED.
2 18-16381