Sky v. Seattle Specialty Dentistry

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 8 9 ELUCIUS SKY, Case No. 20-CV-1669RSL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 11 v. AND DENYING MOTION SEATTLE SPECIAL DENTISTRY, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave of Court to Exhaust 16 All Available Process and to then Amend the Complaint.” Dkt. # 8. On November 17, 2020, the 17 Court found that the complaint in the above-captioned matter appeared to not have a valid basis 18 for federal jurisdiction because HIPAA does not create a private cause of action. Webb v. Smart 19 Document Sols., LLC, 499 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff was ordered to show cause 20 why the complaint should not be dismissed. Dkt. # 4. Plaintiff requested that this Court “expand 21 existing law and find an implicit right to a private cause of action within the explicit right to his 22 dental records pursuant to HIPAA, 45 CFR Par 160 and Subparts A and E of Part 164.524.” 23 Dkt. # 7. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave “to exhaust all available process through the U.S. 24 Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] and to then amend his complaint with 25 specifics as to why the Court should recognize subject matter jurisdiction in this case and cases 26 27 28 1 like it.”1 Dkt. # 8. Plaintiff’s proposal to exhaust all available process through HHS is unavailing 2 because exhaustion would not create a private cause of action where no cause of action 3 otherwise exists under Ninth Circuit precedent.2 See Webb, 499 F.3d at 1083. Therefore, this 4 Court must determine that plaintiff’s complaint has not triggered subject-matter jurisdiction. 5 For these reasons, the plaintiff’s motion for leave (Dkt. # 8) is DENIED, and IT IS 6 HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned matter be DISMISSED without prejudice. 7 DATED this 4th day of January, 2021. 8

9 A 10 11 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 12 13 14 15

19 20 21 22 23

24 1 After plaintiff filed his motion for leave, plaintiff filed “Plaintiff’s Certificate of Completion,” stating that on December 2, 2020, plaintiff requested a formal investigation by the Office for Civil 25 Rights (OCR) of his complaint against defendant. Dkt. # 9. Notably, the letters plaintiff provided from 26 OCR and HHS indicated that OCR had previously decided to resolve the matter informally and had closed the case. See Dkts. # 9-1, 9-2. 27 2 This Court is not free to overrule Ninth Circuit precedent. See Close v. Pierce Cty., CV-09- 28 05023RBL, 2009 WL 3877598, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 18, 2009).