Keith Cassells v. L. McNeal

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 18, 2019
• Docket: 18-16381
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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