Jennings v. Grayson
1:17-cv-00359
D.N.M.Aug 31, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Gloria T. Jennings, a jailed pro se litigant, alleged that San Miguel County District Attorney James Grayson disclosed her medical/medication information at an April 20, 2016 plea conference after she complained about not receiving medications.
- Jennings claims violations of her constitutional right to privacy (asserted under § 1983/Fourteenth Amendment) and HIPAA, and sought $25,000 in damages.
- Grayson removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss, arguing (inter alia) absolute prosecutorial immunity and that HIPAA provides no private cause of action.
- The district court screened the prisoner complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court took judicial notice of the state court plea minutes and assumed Jennings’ factual allegations were true for purposes of the motion.
- The court concluded Grayson’s in-court disclosure and receipt of medical information were actions within the judicial/advocacy function and thus entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity; it dismissed federal claims with prejudice and denied Jennings’ request for a transcript.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor is immune for disclosing/using plaintiff's medical info in court | Griggs: disclosure of medical info violated privacy and HIPAA; seeks damages | Grayson: absolute prosecutorial immunity for actions in judicial process (presentation/what to show court) | Court: Granted — absolute immunity applies; federal claims dismissed |
| Whether accessing/obtaining plaintiff's medical records destroyed immunity | Jennings: no consent to accessing records; unlawful access | Grayson: obtaining records from detention facility in preparation for hearing is part of advocacy/preparation | Court: Granted — immunity covers receipt/preparation; no unlawful investigation alleged |
| Whether HIPAA creates a private right of action | Jennings: asserts HIPAA violation supports damages claim | Grayson: HIPAA provides no private cause of action | Court: Agreed — HIPAA contains no private right; cannot support damages claim |
| Whether plaintiff should get discovery/transcript to prove allegations | Jennings: transcript will prove her claims | Grayson: transcript unnecessary; immunity dispositive | Court: Denied — court relied on plea minutes and assumed allegations; additional transcript not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutors have absolute immunity for actions intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991) (appearance in court and presentation of evidence are protected by absolute immunity)
- Pfeiffer v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 929 F.2d 1484 (10th Cir. 1991) (focus on advocacy function to distinguish prosecutorial from investigative/administrative acts)
- Nielander v. Board of County Com’rs., 582 F.3d 1155 (10th Cir. 2009) (prosecutorial immunity extends to decisions about what information to present to the court)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (court may dismiss frivolous claims and pierce the factual allegations of a complaint under screening statutes)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (applies plausibility standard and evaluates reasonable inferences from pleaded facts)