1:19-cv-00656
D. Haw.Jan 6, 2020Background:
- Pro se plaintiff William K. Oyadomari sued Dr. Sutherland‑Choy and the Honolulu Police, alleging police entered a doctor’s office and questioned him about monthly Abilify injections, violating medical privacy and related rights.
- Oyadomari filed an Application to Proceed IFP claiming $744 monthly income and no assets, but the form lacked required detail about income sources and finances.
- The Court found the IFP affidavit insufficient to establish indigence and DENIED the application WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
- On screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court determined the Complaint failed to state a claim: HIPAA provides no private right of action and the pleading lacked necessary factual and jurisdictional detail.
- The Complaint did not allege amount in controversy, parties’ citizenship for diversity jurisdiction, or clear facts/timing linking defendants to the alleged constitutional or state‑law violations; the Honolulu Police Department was noted as not a proper § 1983 defendant (the City and County of Honolulu is the proper municipal defendant).
- The Complaint was DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and Oyadomari was given leave to amend (or pay the filing fee) and correct deficiencies by January 27, 2020, or face automatic dismissal.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of IFP application | Oyadomari states he receives $744/mo and has no assets | IFP requires detailed, particularized affidavit of poverty | Denied IFP without prejudice for insufficient financial detail |
| Private cause of action under HIPAA | Police entry into medical office violated medical privacy (HIPAA) | HIPAA contains no express or implied private right of action | Court: HIPAA does not create private right; claim fails |
| Federal jurisdiction (diversity/amount) | Seeks a "lumpsum settlement" (no amount); states local ties | No amount alleged; parties appear non‑diverse (both Hawaii) | Court: jurisdiction not established; dismissal warranted |
| §1983/unlawful search and proper defendant | Police entered Hale‑o‑ulu property without notice or court order | Complaint lacks specific facts, dates, defendant identity; HPD is not a suable entity under §1983 | Court: §1983 theory insufficiently pled; proper municipal defendant not named; dismissal without prejudice with leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1981) (poverty affidavits must state facts with particularity)
- Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723 (9th Cir. 1960) (same principle on affidavits of poverty)
- Eldredge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132 (9th Cir. 1987) (pro se complaints must be liberally construed)
- Logan v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 357 F. Supp. 2d 149 (D.D.C. 2004) (HIPAA does not create a private cause of action)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (court must dismiss IFP complaints that fail to state a claim)
- Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (§1915(e)(2) dismissal not limited to prisoners)
- McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996) (Rule 8 requires short, plain statements; prolix complaints burden courts and defendants)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005) (complete diversity and amount in controversy requirements for diversity jurisdiction)
- Williams v. United Airlines, Inc., 500 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2007) (complete diversity requirement explanation)
- Fisher v. Kealoha, 869 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (D. Haw. 2012) (Honolulu Police Department is a division of the City and County of Honolulu and not separately suable under §1983)