Meadows v. United Services, Inc.
963 F.3d 240
| 2d Cir. | 2020Background
- Michael Meadows, pro se, sued United Services, Inc. and Day Kimball Hospital after two United Services employees, accompanied by Putnam police officers, conducted a welfare check at his home and disclosed his mental-health information.
- Meadows alleged violations of the First and Ninth Amendments (construed as § 1983 claims) and violations of HIPAA, including that PHI disclosure led to coercive enrollment in outpatient treatment and loss of control over medications.
- The district court issued a show-cause order and then dismissed both complaints sua sponte, concluding the defendants were private actors (so no § 1983 liability) and that HIPAA provides no private cause of action.
- Meadows appealed and moved for in forma pauperis status, appointment of counsel, and a “writ of certiorari” to review district-court materials.
- The Second Circuit dismissed the appeals as lacking any arguable basis in law or fact, denied Meadows’ motions, and expressly held there is no private right of action under HIPAA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants’ conduct constitutes state action supporting a § 1983 claim | Welfare check with police accompaniment, coercion into treatment, and PHI sharing amounted to state action violating constitutional rights | Defendants are private actors; police assistance or regulation does not convert private conduct into state action | Dismissed: no plausible state action alleged; § 1983 claims fail |
| Whether HIPAA creates a private cause of action | HIPAA was violated by disclosure of PHI and thus supports a private suit | HIPAA contains no express private remedy and enforcement is vested in HHS; no implied private right | Dismissed: HIPAA confers no private right, express or implied |
| Motions for IFP, counsel, and writ | Meadows requested in forma pauperis status, counsel appointment, and review of record | No basis to continue appeal or grant ancillary relief given lack of arguable claims | Denied: motions denied as appeals lack arguable legal or factual basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Sykes v. Bank of Am., 723 F.3d 399 (2d Cir. 2013) (de novo review of sua sponte dismissal)
- Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (pro se filings construed liberally)
- Hogan v. Fischer, 738 F.3d 509 (2d Cir. 2013) (pro se complaint must state plausible claim)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (court may dismiss appeal lacking arguable basis in law or fact)
- Fabrikant v. French, 691 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2012) (state-action requirement for constitutional claims)
- Flagg v. Yonkers Sav. & Loan Ass'n, F.A., 396 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2005) (state-action attribution principles)
- Ginsberg v. Healey Car & Truck Leasing, Inc., 189 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 1999) (police assistance to private actor does not automatically create state action)
- McGugan v. Aldana-Bernier, 752 F.3d 224 (2d Cir. 2014) (private hospital conduct not necessarily state action despite regulation/funding)
- Faber v. Ciox Health, LLC, 944 F.3d 593 (6th Cir. 2019) (no private right under HIPAA)
- Stewart v. Parkview Hosp., 940 F.3d 1013 (7th Cir. 2019) (HIPAA provides no private cause of action)
- Dodd v. Jones, 623 F.3d 563 (8th Cir. 2010) (same)
- Wilkerson v. Shinseki, 606 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 2010) (same)
- United States v. Streich, 560 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2009) (same)
- Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2006) (same)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (framework for implying causes of action and resisting implication)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (statutory silence and delegated enforcement indicate no private right)