United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Harrison Division
OPINION AND ORDER
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Crook ("Crook"), currently an inmate of the Boone
County Detention Center ("BCDC"), has filed a civil
rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds
pro se and has sought leave to proceed in forma
names as Defendants Nurse Jody Woods ("Woods") and
Corporal Jarrod Pointer ("Pointer"). Crook has sued
the Defendants in both their individual and official
case is before the Court for preservice screening under the
provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act
("PLRA"). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the
Court has the obligation to screen any complaint in which a
prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer
or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
to the allegations of the Complaint, on June 3, 2019, Crook
overheard Woods talking about his fiancee's and his
medical conditions. Specifically, Crook alleges Woods was
telling Pointer that she had met Crook's fiancee, who was
HIV positive, in April when he came to the BCDC.
alleges he was offended by this and wants something done
about it. Crook maintains Woods' conduct amounted to a
breach of confidentiality in violation of the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
("HIPAA"). As relief, Crook seeks release on bond
on his own recognizance, or monetary damages.
the PLRA, the Court is obligated to screen the case prior to
service of process being issued. The Court must dismiss a
complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that:
(1) are frivolous, malicious; (2) fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted; or, (3) seek monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28U.S.C.
is frivolous when it "lacks an arguable basis either in
law or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted if it does not allege "enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). "The essential function of a complaint
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to give the
opposing party fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds
for a claim, and a general indication of the type of
litigation involved." Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 848 (8th Cir. 2014) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
the Court bears in mind that when "evaluating whether a
pro se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to
state a claim, we hold 'a pro se complaint,
however inartfully pleaded, ... to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'"
Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014)
(quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
1983 requires proof of two elements: (1) the conduct
complained of must be committed by a person acting under
color of state law, and (2) the conduct must deprive the
plaintiff of rights or privileges secured by the Constitution
or laws of the United States.
maintains that Woods violated HIPAA. HIPAA does not expressly
or impliedly create a private cause of action. Dodd v.
Jones,623 F.3d 563, 569 (8th Cir. 2010). As there is no
violation of the Constitution and no ...