Brown v. Hill
174 F. Supp. 3d 66
D.D.C.
2016

Background

  • Plaintiff Melvin Brown, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, alleges S.O.M.E., Green Door, and a D.C. employee (David Walker) disclosed his mental-health information and conspired to deprive him of liberty following grievances he filed against S.O.M.E.
  • Key events: a December 2, 2010 call to DBH’s Access Helpline (Walker took the call), and a January 13, 2011 Mobile Crisis Team response at Shalom House that resulted in Brown’s handcuffing and transport to CPEP and then PIW for involuntary psychiatric treatment.
  • Brown’s amended complaint asserted § 1983 claims (Fourth and Fifth Amendment deprivation of liberty) and claims under HIPAA and the D.C. Mental Health Information Act (DCMHIA), seeking $16.5 million.
  • The D.C. Circuit remanded for the district court to allow Brown to amend to state jurisdictional basis; Brown filed an Amended Complaint on November 21, 2014.
  • Defendants moved to dismiss: court addressed (1) HIPAA (no private right of action), (2) DCMHIA (one-year statute of limitations), and (3) § 1983 claims (failure to plead state action and conspiracy; proximate-cause issues).

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether HIPAA supports a private cause of action Brown cited improper disclosure of PHI and sought damages Defendants argued HIPAA has no private right of action; enforcement is through HHS Dismissed — HIPAA provides no private cause of action
Whether DCMHIA claim is timely Brown asserted DCMHIA violation from disclosures around Dec 2010–Jan 2011 Defendants argued one-year statute of limitations bars claim Dismissed — DCMHIA claim time-barred (accrued by Jan 13, 2011)
Whether § 1983 claims against Green Door and Walker are timely Brown argued relation back/tolling via prior filings and Superior Court actions Defendants argued three-year § 1983 limitations would bar claims Court treated amended complaint as relating back to original filing; § 1983 claims against Green Door and Walker not time-barred
Whether § 1983 claims survive on the merits (state action, conspiracy, proximate cause) Brown alleged conspiracies among S.O.M.E., Green Door, DBH leading to involuntary commitment Defendants argued no state action by private actors, conclusory conspiracy allegations, and superseding acts by police/mental-health professionals broke causation chain Dismissed — Complaint fails to plead plausible § 1983 liability: Green Door not shown to be a state actor or part of a conspiracy with state; S.O.M.E. not the proximate cause of the involuntary commitment

Key Cases Cited

  • Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2006) (HIPAA does not create a private right of action)
  • Hudes v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 806 F.3d 180 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (district-court opinion discussed absence of private HIPAA right)
  • Runkle v. Gonzales, 391 F. Supp. 2d 210 (D.D.C. 2005) (no private right of action under HIPAA)
  • Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 807 (1994) (§ 1983 is the vehicle to vindicate federal rights, not a source of substantive rights)
  • Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 (1979) (§ 1983 principles)
  • West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (state-action requirement for § 1983 liability)
  • Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983)
  • Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970) (private party acts under color of state law when willful participant in joint activity)
  • Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility and factual allegations required)
  • Patton Boggs LLP v. Chevron Corp., 683 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (pleading standard application)
  • Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (elements of a civil conspiracy)
  • Elkins v. District of Columbia, 690 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (proximate-cause principles in § 1983 actions)
  • Earle v. District of Columbia, 707 F.3d 299 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (applying three-year limitations to § 1983 claims)
  • Proctor v. District of Columbia, 74 F. Supp. 3d 436 (D.D.C. 2014) (statute of limitations rules for § 1983)
Read the full case