Keith Darnell Johnson v. California Correctional Healthcare Services, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 KEITH DARNELL JOHNSON, No. 2:25-cv-3050 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER HEALTHCARE SERVICES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 19 § 1983 and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 20 proceeding was referred to this Court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 21 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 22 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 23 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 24 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in 25 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the Court will 26 direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account 27 and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff is obligated to make monthly 28 payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. 1 These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 2 the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1915(b)(2). 4 Plaintiff is granted an opportunity to elect to proceed with his Fourth Amendment and 5 Fourteenth Amendment claims against doe defendant California Correctional Health Care 6 Services (“CCHCS”) data entry employee, or plaintiff may elect to amend his complaint as 7 discussed below. 9 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 10 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 11 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 12 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 13 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 14 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 15 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 16 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 17 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 18 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 19 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 20 Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 21 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 22 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 23 1227. 24 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 25 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 26 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 27 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 28 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 1 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 2 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. 3 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 4 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 5 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal 6 quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 7 true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the 8 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 9 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). 11 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) the violation of a federal 12 constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under 13 the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 14 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the 15 facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal 16 connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. 17 See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 18 (9th Cir. 1978). That is, plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable 19 for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 20 (2009). The requisite causal connection between a supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the 21 violation of the prisoner’s constitutional rights can be established in a number of ways, including 22 by demonstrating that a supervisor’s own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision, 23 or control of his subordinates was a cause of plaintiff’s injury. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 24 1208 (9th Cir. 2011). 26 Plaintiff requests that all exhibits filed by plaintiff in case no. 2:25-cv-1423 DC CSK P be 27 transferred to the instant action. (ECF No. 7.) For the following reasons, this request is denied. 28 In case no. 2:25-cv-1423, plaintiff raised the same claims as are raised in the instant 1 action.1 On September 11, 2025, in case no. 2:25-cv-1423, this Court ordered plaintiff to show 2 cause why case no. 2:25-cv-1423 should not be dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust 3 administrative remedies prior to filing the action. See 2:25-cv-1423 (ECF No. 14). On October 4 3, 2025, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed case no. 2:25-cv-1423. See Case No. 2:25-cv1423 (ECF 5 No. 18). Plaintiff filed the instant action on October 20, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) 6 Although the instant action and case no. 2:25-cv-1423 raise the same claims, plaintiff’s 7 request to transfer all exhibits filed in case no. 2:25-cv-1423 is denied because not all exhibits 8 filed by plaintiff in case no. 2:25-cv-1423 are relevant to the instant action. In case no. 2:25-cv- 9 1423, plaintiff filed documents regarding his exhaustion of administrative remedies. See 2:25-cv- 10 1423 (ECF No. 10). Documents filed in case no. 2:25-cv-1423 regarding plaintiff’s exhaustion of 11 administrative exhaustion are not relevant to the instant action because plaintiff’s complaint filed 12 in the instant action reflects exhaustion of administrative remedies. Instead, in the instant order, 13 this Court takes judicial notice of the exhibits attached to plaintiff’s complaint filed in case no. 14 2:25-cv-1423 to the extent they are relevant to this Court’s screening of the complaint. 16 Named as defendants are California Correctional Health Care Services (“CCHCS”), 17 Policy and Risk Management Services (“PRMS”), two doe CCHCS data entry employees and a 18 doe defendant identified as “recipient.” (ECF No. 1 at 1-3.) Plaintiff claims that on August 21, 19 2023, a CCHCS employee intentionally sent an unencrypted email containing plaintiff’s protected 20 health information to an unauthorized recipient at the unauthorized recipient’s personal email 21 address. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that the email contained plaintiff’s name, California 22 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) risk level and medical information. (Id. 23 at 3-4.) 24 As federal claims, plaintiff alleges violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and right to 25

1 This Court takes judicial notice of the record in case no. 2:25-cv-1423. See Fed. Rule of Evid. 26 201(b); Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2006) 27 (taking judicial notice of documents filed in other action); Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012) (taking judicial notice of “documents on file in federal or state 28 courts”). 1 privacy. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff also raises the following state law claims: 1) violation of the 2 California Information Practices Act; 2) violation of the California Confidential Medical 3 Information Act; 3) breach of confidence; 4) negligence; 5) breach of implied contract; 6) breach 4 of the implied covenant of good faith and decency; 7) unfair business practices; and 8) unjust 5 enrichment. (Id.) 6 As relief, plaintiff seeks money damages. (Id. at 5.) 8 A. Defendants CCHCS and PRMS 9 Defendant CCHCS is a state agency and defendant PRMS appears to be a state agency or 10 an arm of a state agency. “The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages in federal 11 court against a state, its agencies, and state officials acting in their official capacities.” Aholelei 12 v. Dep’t of Public Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). Indeed, the Eleventh Amendment 13 prohibits federal courts from hearing a § 1983 lawsuit in which damages or injunctive relief is 14 sought against a state, its agencies or individual prisons, absent “a waiver by the state or a valid 15 congressional override....” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999). “The 16 State of California has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to claims 17 brought under § 1983 in federal court....” Dittman, 191 F.3d at 1025–26 (citing Atascadero State 18 Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 241 (1985)); see also Brown v. Cal. Dep’t. of Corrs., 554 F.3d 19 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding CDCR and California Board of Prison Terms entitled to 20 Eleventh Amendment immunity). Further, Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to state law 21 claims over which a federal court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See Pennhurst v. 22 State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 121 (1984). Accordingly, plaintiff’s federal 23 and state law claims against defendants CCHCS and PRMS are barred by the Eleventh 24 Amendment. 25 B. Claims Against Doe Defendants 26 1. Right to Privacy and Fourteenth Amendment Claims 27 At the outset, this Court finds that plaintiff’s right to privacy and Fourteenth Amendment 28 claims appear to be based on the alleged disclosure of plaintiff’s confidential medical 1 information. Regarding these claims, plaintiff names as defendants the doe defendant CCHCS 2 data entry employee who allegedly disclosed plaintiff’s confidential medical information and the 3 doe defendant recipient of that information. Although plaintiff names two CCHCS data entry 4 employees as doe defendants, the complaint alleges that one CCHCS data entry employee 5 disclosed plaintiff’s confidential medical information. This Court first discusses the relevant 6 exhibits addressing plaintiff’s right to privacy and Fourteenth Amendment claims. 7 Attached as an exhibit to the complaint filed in the instant action is the Headquarters’ 8 Level Response to plaintiff’s administrative grievance regarding the release of plaintiff’s 9 confidential medical information. The Headquarters’ Level Response states, 10 The Health Care Correspondence and Appeals Branch has received your health care grievance regarding the notification you were sent 11 informing you of the potential release of your protected health information or personally identifiable information to an unauthorized 12 party. Please carefully read the original notification you were sent regarding the potential release of your personal information. 13

14 (ECF No. 1 at 6.) 15 The Headquarters’ Level Response refers to Information Security Incident Number 16 25032800. (Id.) Attached as an exhibit to the complaint filed case no. 2:25-cv-1423 is a letter 17 addressed to plaintiff from a CCHCS Privacy Officer dated April 7, 2025. See case no. 2:25-cv- 18 1423 (ECF No. 1 at 8-9). This letter states, in relevant part, 19 We are writing to inform you about a recent privacy incident that may have affected your Protected Health Information (PHI). While 20 we have no evidence to suggest that your personal information has been misused, we are taking this matter seriously and are committed 21 to transparency in this matter. 22 What Happened 23 On or about March 27, 2025, California Correctional Health Care Services (CCHCS) discovered a disclosure of your unencrypted PHI. 24 It was reported that on or about August 21, 2023, an employee sent an unencrypted email containing your PHI to an unauthorized 25 recipient at their personal email address. 26 What Information Was Involved 27 The PHI contained in the email was your last name, CDCR #, risk level and medical information. 28 1 Case No. 2:25-cv-1423 (ECF No. 1 at 8). 2 This letter also states that the CCHCS Privacy Office instructed the recipient of the email 3 containing plaintiff’s confidential information to destroy the email and/or delete any emails 4 containing plaintiff’s confidential information. See Case No. 2:25-cv-1423 (ECF No. 1 at 8). 5 This letter states, “We have since obtained an attestation from the recipient confirming that the 6 information was not further disclosed, and it was deleted on August 21, 2023.” See Case No. 7 2:25-cv-1423 (ECF No. 1 at 8). This letter refers to “CDCR ISIR # 250328001.” See Case No. 8 2:25-cv-1423 (ECF No. 1 at 9). Therefore, it appears that the Headquarters’ Level Response and 9 the letter from the CCHCS Privacy Officer refer to the same incident. While the Headquarters’ 10 Level Response refers to the potential release of plaintiff’s confidential medical information, the 11 letter from the CCHCS Privacy Officer indicates that plaintiff’s confidential medical information 12 was actually disclosed. 13 In Seaton v. Mayberg, 610 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth Circuit found that prisoners 14 do not have a constitutionally protected expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in 15 prison treatment records where the state has a legitimate penological interest in access to them. 16 See 610 F.3d at 534-35. The Ninth Circuit has recognized a Fourteenth Amendment 17 constitutionally protected privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of private personal matters, 18 including medical records. See Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Lab., 135 F.3d 1260, 19 1269 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The constitutionally protected privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of 20 personal matters clearly encompasses medical information and its confidentiality.”) (citing Doe v. 21 Attorney Gen. of the United States, 941 F.2d 780, 795 (9th Cir. 1991)). This Court finds that 22 plaintiff states a potentially colorable claim for violation of his right to privacy against the doe 23 defendant CCHCS data entry employee who allegedly disclosed plaintiff’s confidential medical 24 information. At this time, this Court need not determine whether plaintiff’s claim for violation of 25 his right to privacy is properly raised as a Fourth and/or Fourteenth Amendment claim. 26 For the following reasons, this Court finds that plaintiff does not state a potentially 27 colorable claim for violation of his right to privacy under either the Fourth or Fourteenth 28 Amendments against the doe defendant who allegedly received plaintiff’s confidential medical 1 information from the doe defendant CCHCS data entry employee. First, plaintiff does not 2 identify the doe defendant who allegedly received plaintiff’s confidential information as a state 3 actor. In order to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: 1) defendant was acting 4 under color of state law at the time the complained of act was committed; and 2) defendant’s 5 conduct deprived plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws 6 of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Second, 7 plaintiff fails to state a potentially colorable claim for violation of the right to privacy against the 8 doe defendant who allegedly received plaintiff’s confidential medical information because there 9 is no claim that this doe defendant went on to disclose plaintiff’s medical confidential information 10 to anyone after receiving the confidential medical information. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim for 11 violation of the right to privacy against the doe defendant who allegedly received plaintiff’s 12 confidential information is dismissed. 13 2. State Law Claims Against Doe Defendants 14 Plaintiff raises the following state law claims: 1) violation of the California Information 15 Practices Act; 2) violation of the California Confidential Medical Information Act; 3) breach of 16 confidence; 4) negligence; 5) breach of implied contract; 6) breach of the implied covenant of 17 good faith and decency; 7) unfair business practices; and 8) unjust enrichment. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) 18 This Court first observes that it can find no authority establishing a claim for breach of the 19 implied covenant of good faith and decency. For this reason, this claim is dismissed. 20 To state a state law claim, plaintiff must demonstrate compliance with the California 21 Government Claims Act. Cal. Gov’t Code § 810, et seq. The Government Claims Act requires 22 that a tort claim against a public entity or its employees be presented to the California Victim 23 Compensation and Government Claims Board no more than six months after the cause of action 24 accrues. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905.2, 910, 911.2, 945.4, 950, 950.2 (2011). A plaintiff may file a 25 written application for leave to file a late claim up to one year after the cause of action accrues. 26 Cal. Gov’t Code § 911.4. 27 Compliance with this “claim presentation requirement” constitutes an element of a cause 28 of action for damages against a public entity or official. See State v. Superior Court (Bodde), 32 1 Cal. 4th 1234, 1244 (2004). Thus, timely presentation of a claim under the Government Claims 2 Act must be pled in the complaint. See id. at 1237, 1240; see also Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Utils. 3 Comm’n, 67 F.3d. 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995). The plaintiff must present facts demonstrating 4 compliance, rather than simply conclusions suggesting as much. See Shirk v. Vista Unified 5 School Dist., 42 Cal. 4th 201, 209 (2007), as modified (Oct. 10, 2007). Such requirements also 6 apply to state law claims included in a federal action under § 1983. See Volis v. Housing Auth. 7 of the City of L.A. Emps., 670 F. App’x 543, 544 (9th Cir. 2016). 8 Plaintiff fails to plead compliance with the Government Claims Act as to his state law 9 claims.2 Accordingly, plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed. If plaintiff files an amended 10 complaint raising state law claims, plaintiff must present facts demonstrating compliance with the 11 Government Claims Act. 13 Plaintiff may proceed with his potentially colorable Fourth and/or Fourteenth Amendment 14 claims against the doe defendant CCHCS data entry employee or he may file an amended 15 complaint. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is not granted 16 leave to add new claims or new defendants. An amended complaint must be complete in itself 17 without reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 220; see Ramirez v. County of San 18 Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint supersedes the 19 original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation omitted). Once 20 plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded. 21 If plaintiff opts to proceed with his complaint as to the doe defendant CCHCS data entry 22 employee, plaintiff must identify the doe defendant with sufficient information so that service of 23 process may be effectuated. After the operative complaint is determined, this Court will issue 24 2 Plaintiff must comply with the Government Claims Act as to his claims brough pursuant to the 25 California Information Practices Act and the California Confidential Medical Information Act. See Bates v. Franchise Tax Bd., 124 Cal. App. 4th 367, 382-85 (2004) (claims under the 26 California Information Practices Act are not exempt from compliance with the Government 27 Claims Act); Smith v. Sonoma Valley Health Care District, 2024 WL 3884162 (Cal. App. 2024) (applying Government Claims Act to claims raised under California Confidential Medical 28 Information Act). 1 further orders addressing how plaintiff may discover the identity of a doe defendant. See 2 Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 978 (9th Cir. 2013) (if identity of defendant is unknown, 3 plaintiff should be given opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendant). 4 VIII. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUBPOENAS AND REQUEST FOR TRANSFER 6 On October 20, 2025, plaintiff filed a letter addressed to the Clerk of the Court docketed 7 as “motion to subpoena health records.” (ECF No. 2.) In this document, plaintiff appears to 8 request subpoenas so that he may obtain health records in order to identify the doe defendants 9 named in this action. (Id.) On January 15, 2026, plaintiff filed another letter addressed to the 10 Clerk of the Court docketed as “Request for Transfer of Motion for Subpoena.” (ECF No. 10.) 11 In this letter, plaintiff also appears to request subpoenas so that he may obtain information 12 regarding the identity of the doe defendants named in this action. (Id.) These requests are denied 13 as premature. As stated above, after the operative complaint is determined, the Court will issue 14 further orders addressing how plaintiff may discover the identity of a doe defendant. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is granted. 18 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 19 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 21 Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 22 herewith. 23 3. All claims but for the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against the doe 24 defendant CCHCS data entry employee are dismissed. Within thirty days of service of this order, 25 plaintiff may file an amended complaint. 26 4. The allegations in the complaint are sufficient to state potentially cognizable Fourth 27 and/or Fourteenth Amendment claims against doe defendant CCHCS data entry employee. See 28 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If plaintiff chooses to proceed solely as to such claims, plaintiff shall so 1 | indicate on the attached form and return it to the Court within thirty days from the date of this 2 || order. In this event, the Court will construe plaintiffs election to proceed forthwith as consent to 3 || an order dismissing the defective claims without prejudice. 4 5. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 5 || dismissed. 6 6. Plaintiff's motion to subpoena mental health records (ECF No. 2), request to transfer 7 || exhibits (ECF No. 7) and request for transfer of motion for subpoena (ECF No. 10) are denied. 8 9 || Dated: February 10, 2026 4 aA 10 \ Aaa spe CHI SOO KIM i UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 | John3050.140p/2 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 KEITH DARNELL JOHNSON, No. 2:25-cv-3050 CSK P 14 Plaintiff, 15 v. NOTICE OF ELECTION HEALTHCARE SERVICES, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff elects to proceed as follows:

20 ______ Plaintiff opts to proceed with his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against doe defendant CCHCS data entry employee. Under this 21 option, plaintiff consents to dismissal of the remaining claims and 22 defendants without prejudice.

23 OR

24 _____ Plaintiff opts to file an amended complaint and delay service of process.

25 DATED: 26 _______________________________ 27 Plaintiff 28