622 F. App'x 43
2d Cir.2015Background
- Pamela Bond, pro se, sued the Connecticut Board of Nursing and others alleging discrimination and related claims arising from the Board’s failure to renew her nursing license in 2009.
- Bond sent a complaint letter to Governor Jodi Rell in 2010 and received a response from a defendant in April 2010; no alleged conduct occurred after April 2010.
- Bond filed her federal complaint in August 2014, more than four years after the last alleged act.
- The district court dismissed the complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, and denied leave to amend.
- Bond appealed the dismissal; the Second Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims are timely | Bond contends defendants discriminated by not renewing her license (claims relate to 2009–2010 acts) | Defendants: last alleged act occurred April 2010; suit filed Aug 2014—outside applicable limitations | Claims are time-barred; court applied Connecticut 3-year personal-injury statute and dismissed |
| Whether HIPAA provides a private right / is timely | Bond asserted HIPAA violations in her cover sheet and complaint | Defendants: HIPAA likely provides no private cause of action; even if it did, any limitations period would not be longer than ADA/Rehab Act | Court treated HIPAA claim as time-barred and noted circuits generally find no private right of action |
| Whether dismissal without leave to amend was reversible | Bond implied she could amend to cure defects | Defendants: amendment would be futile given timeliness and lack of viable HIPAA cause of action | Denial of leave to amend was not reversible error; amendment would have been futile |
| Use of § 1915(e)(2) sua sponte dismissal | Bond proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis (implied) | District court: permitted to dismiss frivolous/meritless complaints under § 1915(e)(2) | Second Circuit affirmed de novo review and upheld dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Zaleski v. Burns, 606 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2010) (de novo review of § 1915(e)(2) dismissals)
- Graham Cty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409 (2005) (borrow state statute of limitations when federal statute is silent)
- Duprey v. Conn. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 191 F.R.D. 329 (D. Conn. 2000) (applying Connecticut limitations period to ADA claim)
- Lee v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 939 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Conn. 2013) (applying Connecticut limitations period to Rehabilitation Act claim)
- Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2010) (futility standard for denying leave to amend)
- Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2000) (pro se amendments may be denied if futile)
- Dodd v. Jones, 623 F.3d 563 (8th Cir. 2010) (circuit conclusion that HIPAA creates no private right of action)
- Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2006) (concluding HIPAA does not create a private cause of action)