Brandyn E. Mitchell v. Dr. Gilbert Noe

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

BRANDYN E. MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:26-cv-596-SPC-NPM

DR. GILBERT NOE,

Defendant. / OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Brandyn E. Mitchell’s Complaint (Doc. 1), which he filed as a state prisoner in Charlotte County Correctional Institution. Also, Mitchell filed an inmate account statement (Doc. 7), which the Court construes as a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because Mitchell moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court reviews the complaint to determine if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary damages from anyone immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides the standard for screening complaints under § 1915. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1485 (11th Cir. 1997). A district court should dismiss a claim when a party does not plead facts that make the claim facially plausible. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible when a court can draw a reasonable inference, based on facts pled, that the opposing party

is liable for the alleged misconduct. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). This plausibility standard requires “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (internal quotation marks omitted)). And a plaintiff must allege more than

labels and conclusions amounting to a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Mitchell accuses Dr. Noe, who works at the state prison, of violating his federal rights by failing to provide him sufficient medical care, but he falls

short of stating a plausible claim. He alleges that, on October 10, 2025, Dr. Noe refused to send him to an eye specialist at a facility outside of the prison for laser eye surgery. (Doc. 1 at 5, 8) He contends that the doctor’s refusal to authorize laser eye surgery caused him to lose his eyesight in both

eyes. (Doc. 1 at 5, 8) He asserts that Dr. Noe violated his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment and his rights under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. (Doc. 1 at 8) Mitchell does not allege any facts to support a claim based on HIPAA.

Also, because HIPAA neither expressly nor impliedly creates a private cause of action, Mitchell’s claim based on HIPAA is meritless. Laster v. CareConnect Health Inc., 852 F. App’x 476, 478 (11th Cir. 2021).1

“Prison officials violate the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments when they act with ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.’” Bayse v. Ward, 147 F.4th 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2025) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). Because the complaint

fails to identify the serious medical need that Mitchell suffered and fails to allege facts that demonstrate that Dr. Noe was subjectively aware that his omission caused a substantial risk of harm, Mitchell fails to state a deliberate indifference claim. Wade v. McDade, 106 F.4th 1251, 1262 (11th Cir. 2024);

Johnson v. Lewis, 83 F.4th 1319, 1327 (11th Cir. 2023). Because a more carefully drafted complaint could not state a claim under HIPAA, the Court will not grant Mitchell an opportunity to amend the claim. Woldeab v. Dekalb Cty. Bd. of Educ., 885 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2018).

To proceed with this case, Mitchell must file an amended complaint that alleges facts to establish a deliberate indifference claim. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:

1 11th Cir. R. 36-2 (“Unpublished opinions are not considered binding precedent, but they may be cited as persuasive authority.”). 1. Plaintiff Brandyn E. Mitchell’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. The claim under HIPAA is DISMISSED with prejudice. The deliberate indifference claim is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend. 2. Because Mitchell’s construed motion (Doc. 7) for leave to proceed in forma pauperis does not contain sufficient information, the motion is DISMISSED without prejudice. 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Mitchell forms for a civil-rights complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 4, Mitchell may file an amended complaint and an amended motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis by May 27, 2026. Otherwise, the Court will close this case without further notice. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on May 6, 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies: All Parties of Record