Leiser v. Moore
903 F.3d 1137
10th Cir.2018Background
- Joseph Leiser, held in an Illinois jail pending extradition to Coffey County, KS, underwent medical tests (chest x‑ray, brain CT) at the Coffey County Jail administrator Shannon Moore’s request after he was tasered.
- Test results indicating bone lesions and possible cancer were communicated by Moore and Sheriff Randy Rogers to Coffey County Hospital and to Leiser’s family and friends without Leiser’s consent.
- Leiser sued Moore and Rogers in state court under state and federal law, including a § 1983 claim for violation of a constitutional right to informational privacy based on disclosure to family and friends.
- Defendants removed the action to federal court; the district court granted judgment on the pleadings for defendants on the federal claim (qualified immunity) and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
- On appeal the Tenth Circuit assumed (without deciding) a privacy interest and addressed only whether the right was clearly established for qualified‑immunity purposes, ultimately affirming dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disclosure of Leiser’s medical information to family/friends violated a constitutional right to informational privacy | Leiser: disclosure to family/friends of serious medical condition was an unconstitutional disclosure of private medical information | Moore/Rogers: no clearly established constitutional prohibition; proffered legitimate penological purpose and distinctions from AIDS/HIV cases | Court: assumed privacy interest but held law was not clearly established that disclosure of cancer would violate the Constitution; qualified immunity affirmed |
| Whether Tenth Circuit precedents (A.L.A., Herring) clearly established the right | Leiser: A.L.A. and Herring recognize constitutional protection for disclosure of medical info | Defendants: Supreme Court developments (Paul, Doe, NASA) and case distinctions undermine a bright‑line rule; disease stigma matters | Court: those precedents do not clearly establish a broadly applicable rule given intervening Supreme Court statements and factual differences |
| Whether Supreme Court authority had left the question open or resolved it | Leiser: precedent supports right to non‑disclosure of medical info | Defendants: Supreme Court has characterized earlier language as dicta and Paul restricts scope; NASA assumed but did not decide the right exists | Court: Supreme Court has left the existence/extent of informational privacy an open question, so not clearly established |
| Whether disease type and context matter to the constitutional analysis | Leiser: any nonconsensual disclosure of confidential medical information is protected | Defendants: disclosure of cancer (less stigmatized than HIV) to encourage support may be permissible; courts assess conditions case‑by‑case | Court: factual distinctions (HIV stigma, hostile disclosure) and post‑NASA case law (e.g., Matson) show the protection is not clearly defined across contexts |
Key Cases Cited
- Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977) (recognized privacy interests and discussed an "individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters")
- Nixon v. Administrator of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425 (1977) (upheld government custody/disclosure statute but referenced privacy interest in avoiding disclosure)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (reputation alone does not constitute a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest)
- NASA v. Nelson, 562 U.S. 134 (2011) (treated existence of a constitutional informational‑privacy right as assumed but unresolved/dicta)
- A.L.A. v. West Valley City, 26 F.3d 989 (10th Cir. 1994) (Tenth Circuit recognized constitutional protection for disclosure of confidential medical information)
- Herring v. Keenan, 218 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2000) (recognized privacy claim for non‑disclosure of HIV status by a government official)
- Matson v. Bd. of Educ., 631 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2011) (declined to extend constitutional privacy protection to fibromyalgia; privacy interest varies by condition)
- Browder v. City of Albuquerque, 787 F.3d 1076 (10th Cir. 2015) (discussed conscience‑shocking standard in substantive due process contexts)