Zaldivar v. Southern Arizona Veterans Affairs Health Care System
695 F. App'x 328
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jose Adalberto Zaldivar, Sr., pro se, sued under FOIA and the Privacy Act seeking records related to his medical files and other relief.
- District court granted summary judgment and dismissed several claims; Zaldivar appealed. Ninth Circuit reviews de novo and affirms.
- Court addressed multiple requests spanning 2008–2011 and multiple legal theories (FOIA, Privacy Act, §1981/§1982/§1985/§1986, HIPAA, and request for counsel).
- Key procedural rulings: denial for lack of administrative exhaustion (one FOIA request), adequacy of search (another FOIA/PA request), and multiple dismissals as time-barred under applicable statutes of limitations.
- Court also rejected claims alleging racial discrimination/conspiracy for insufficient facts, held HIPAA provides no private right of action, and denied appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion for July 14, 2009 FOIA request | Zaldivar contends administrative remedies were exhausted or not required | Agency contends administrative remedies were not exhausted | Court: Zaldivar failed to raise a genuine dispute; FOIA exhaustion required, summary judgment for defendants |
| Adequacy of search for Nov 22, 2011 FOIA/PA requests | Zaldivar argues agency failed to conduct a reasonable search and withheld responsive records | Agency produced declarations showing reasonable search efforts | Court: No genuine dispute of fact; summary judgment for defendants |
| Timeliness of multiple FOIA/PA claims (2008–2010 requests) | Zaldivar asserts continuing violation or other tolling to save claims | Government: claims are time-barred under Privacy Act two-year limit and six-year catchall for other claims | Court: Dismissed these claims as time-barred; continuing-violation theory rejected |
| Racial discrimination and conspiracy (§§ 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986) | Zaldivar alleges discrimination and conspiracy in withholding records | Defendants: pleadings lack factual support for racial discrimination or conspiracy | Court: Claims dismissed for failure to plead plausible facts |
| HIPAA and appointment of counsel | HIPAA provides a private right; counsel needed for complex case | Defendants: HIPAA has no private right; no exceptional circumstances for counsel | Court: HIPAA claim dismissed; motion for counsel denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Lane v. Dep’t of Interior, 523 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir.) (FOIA and Privacy Act summary judgment standards)
- Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir.) (review of dismissals for failure to state a claim)
- Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443 (9th Cir.) (dismissal review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A)
- Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir.) (appellate affirmance may be based on any record-supported ground)
- In re Steele, 799 F.2d 461 (9th Cir.) (FOIA requires administrative exhaustion)
- Hamdan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 797 F.3d 759 (9th Cir.) (requirements for adequacy of FOIA search)
- Nesovic v. United States, 71 F.3d 776 (9th Cir.) (statute of limitations principles and 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) catchall)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir.) (pro se pleading standards and plausibility requirement)
- Webb v. Smart Document Solutions, LLC, 499 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir.) (no private right of action under HIPAA)
- Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965 (9th Cir.) (standard for appointment of counsel; exceptional circumstances)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir.) (appellate waiver of issues not raised in opening brief)