Ayarzagoitia v. Tahir

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided March 18, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-02004·Unknown

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 8 9 Damian Ayarzagoitia, No. CV-24-02004-PHX-JAT (JFM) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Syed Zubair Tahir, 13 Defendant.

14 15 On August 8, 2024, Plaintiff Damian Ayarzagoitia, who is confined in the Saguaro 16 Correctional Center, filed a Civil Complaint for Medical Malpractice and an Application 17 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On September 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend 18 Complaint and lodged a proposed First Amended Civil Complaint for Medical Malpractice. 19 On October 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Ruling regarding his Application to 20 Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In an October 31, 2024 Order, the Court granted the Motion 21 for Ruling insofar as the Order contained a ruling on Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In 22 Forma Pauperis, granted the Application to Proceed, denied the Motion to Amend, and 23 gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint using the court-approved form included 24 with the Order. 25 On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. In a December 26 23, 2024 Order, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint because Plaintiff had 27 failed to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file a second amended complaint 28 1 that cured the deficiencies identified in the Order.1 2 On January 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 18). The 3 Court will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 4 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 5 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 6 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 7 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 8 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which 9 relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 10 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 11 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 12 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 13 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 14 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 15 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 16 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 17 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 18 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 19 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 20 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 21 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 22 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 23 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 24 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 25 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 26

27 1 On January 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand to State Court (Doc. 16) 28 and a Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 17). On January 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Withdrawal of the Motions (Doc. 19). The Court therefore takes no action on the Motions. 1 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 2 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 3 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be held to less stringent 4 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 5 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 6 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 7 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 8 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The 9 Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, but 10 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 11 to amend. 12 II. Second Amended Complaint 13 In his single-count Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names Syed Zubair Tahir 14 as the sole Defendant. Plaintiff identifies the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction over the 15 Second Amended Complaint as 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 16 and 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.522-164.524. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has denied him copies 17 of his medical records, in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 18 Act of 1996 (HIPAA), 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.522-164.524. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and 19 his fees and costs for this case. 20 III. Failure to State a Claim 21 Under HIPAA, “an individual has a right of access to inspect and obtain a copy of 22 protected health information about the individual in a designated record set, for as long as 23 the protected health information is maintained in the designated record set.” 45 C.F.R. § 24 164.524(a)(1). However, “HIPAA itself provides no private right of action.” Webb v. 25 Smart Document Solutions, LLC, 499 F.3d 1079, 1081 (9th Cir. 2007), and the right to 26 access health records under 45 C.F.R. § 164.524 is not enforceable through section 1983, 27 see Kittel v. City of Oxnard, No. CV 17-6709-MWF (GJSx), 2019 WL 1578369, at *3 28 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2019), aff’d sub nom. Kittel v. Advantage Physical Therapy, 843 F. 1 App’x 53 (9th Cir. 2021). Plaintiff therefore fails to state a claim in the Second Amended 2 Complaint, and it will be dismissed. 3 IV. Leave to Amend 4 Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a third amended complaint to cure the 5 deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form 6 to use for filing a third amended complaint. 7 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “Third 8 Amended Complaint.” The third amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 9 entirety on the court-approved form and may not incorporate any part of the original 10 Complaint or prior Amended Complaints by reference. Plaintiff may include only one 11 claim per count. 12 A third amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint and prior Amended 13 Complaints. Ferdik v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ayarzagoitia v. Tahir, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Ayarzagoitia v. Tahir (Ayarzagoitia v. Tahir) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hebbe v. Pliler
627 F.3d 338 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Webb v. Smart Document Solutions, LLC
499 F.3d 1078 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)