63 F. Supp. 3d 1159
C.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiff is an HIV-positive prisoner at CIM operated by CDCR.
- In 2012, Defendant Young misplaced Plaintiff’s medical file, sending it to another prisoner.
- The file’s disclosure led to taunts and threats against Plaintiff by other inmates.
- Plaintiff sought assistance from officers Valenzuela and Nash, who declined to intervene; other staff were involved or contacted but did not secure the records.
- The records were returned about 19 days after Plaintiff first sought help; later, Plaintiff met with Defendant Logan who apologized.
- TAC asserts §1983 privacy claims and California privacy claims, alleging deliberate indifference to risk of harm from disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1983 privacy claim is cognizable. | Plaintiff argues privacy right exists and was violated. | Defendants contend lack of deliberate indifference and no clearly established right. | Yes, sufficient facts alleged; privacy right cognizable with deliberate indifference. |
| Whether defendants are liable given qualified immunity. | Plaintiff asserts right was clearly established and violated. | Defendants argue right not clearly established. | No qualified immunity; right clearly established and violated. |
| Whether California privacy claim survives with GCA immunity and statutory defenses. | Privacy right under California Constitution is actionable; immunity does not bar it. | GCA immunity may shield unless Jacob B. applies. | Statutory immunity not controlling; California privacy claim survives. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1987) (privacy rights limited by penological interests, but not absolute)
- Doe v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 941 F.2d 780 (9th Cir. 1991) (recognizes constitutional privacy in medical information; HIV status included)
- Jacob B. v. Cnty. of Shasta, 40 Cal.4th 948 (Cal. 2007) (litigation privilege defeats privacy claim against government in narrow scope)
- Richardson-Tunnell v. Sch. Ins. Program for Employees (SIPE), 157 Cal.App.4th 1056 (Cal. App. 2007) (statutory immunity debated; court distinguished from Jacob B.)
- Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n., 7 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994) (defines elements of California privacy claim; third prong requires serious invasion)