Schlosser v. Kwak, 16 F.4th 1078

Schlosser, released on probation after state imprisonment, ran out of psychiatric medication and used illegal substances; his probation officers referred him to Connecticut Counseling Centers (CCC) for substance-abuse treatment.
Probation officers Elzia and Callahan signed an affidavit that disclosed Schlosser’s treatment at CCC, prompting state probation-violation proceedings; Schlosser admitted a probation violation in April 2017.
Schlosser later accepted a 3-year plea offer for a subsequent violation, but the sentencing judge imposed five years’ imprisonment instead.
Schlosser sued pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging among other claims that the public disclosure of his substance-abuse treatment violated 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2(a) (confidentiality of substance-abuse treatment records).
The District Court screened and dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), concluding § 290dd-2(a) does not create personal rights enforceable via § 1983; the State did not participate below but filed an amicus brief on appeal.
The Second Circuit affirmed, holding § 290dd-2(a) is programmatic/public-interest legislation without rights-creating language and thus does not confer an individual right enforceable under § 1983.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2(a) creates a personal, enforceable right to confidentiality under § 1983	Schlosser: § 290dd-2(a) grants patients a confidentiality right that was violated by disclosure	State: § 290dd-2(a) regulates programs and public interest, lacks rights-creating language and private enforcement; enforcement is criminal/administrative, not via § 1983	The statute does not create an individual right enforceable under § 1983; dismissal affirmed

Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) (three-factor test for determining whether a statute creates enforceable § 1983 rights)
Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (requirement of rights-creating language for private enforcement)
Doe v. Broderick, 225 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2000) (holding § 290dd-2 does not create individual § 1983 rights)
Ellison v. Cocke Cnty., 63 F.3d 467 (6th Cir. 1995) (similar conclusion re: § 290dd-2)
Chapa v. Adams, 168 F.3d 1036 (7th Cir. 1999) (no implied private right under § 290dd-2)
N.Y. State Citizens’ Coal. for Children v. Poole, 922 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 2019) (analysis of rights-creating language)
Harnage v. Lightner, 916 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2019) (standard of review for § 1915A dismissals)
Grullon v. City of New Haven, 720 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2013) (pleading standard applied on appeal)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)