Foster Taft v. Ventura County Medical Center ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    DEC 23 2021
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    FOSTER TAFT,                                     No. 21-55216
    Plaintiff-Appellant,               D.C. No.
    2:20-cv-07856-MWF-E
    v.
    VENTURA COUNTY MEDICAL                           MEMORANDUM*
    CENTER; CAROL LASHBROOK,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 7, 2021**
    Pasadena, California
    Before: W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and
    BENCIVENGO,*** District Judge.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    ***
    The Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo, United States District Judge
    for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
    Foster Taft appeals from an order of the district court dismissing his
    complaint without leave to amend. Taft brought suit under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    against Ventura County Medical Center (“VCMC”) and Carol Lashbrook, a
    VCMC records preparer, alleging a violation of the federal Health Insurance
    Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”). We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and we affirm.
    Taft argues that his suit should not have been dismissed because § 1983
    confers a private cause of action for violations of HIPAA. It is well established,
    however, that HIPAA itself does not provide a private cause of action. Webb v.
    Smart Document Sols., 
    499 F.3d 1078
    , 1081 (9th Cir. 2007). An alleged HIPAA
    violation therefore cannot provide a basis for a § 1983 claim. Gonzaga Univ. v.
    Doe, 
    536 U.S. 273
    , 282–83 (2002) (“We now reject the notion that our cases
    permit anything short of an unambiguously conferred right to support a cause of
    action brought under § 1983.”).
    Taft further argues that the district court erred in denying leave to amend his
    complaint to add a cause of action under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a.
    A district court’s denial of leave to amend a complaint is presumed improper
    unless upon de novo review it is clear that “the complaint could not be saved by
    any amendment.” Thinket Ink Info. Res. v. Sun Microsystems, 
    368 F.3d 1053
    , 1061
    2
    (9th Cir. 2004). The Privacy Act of 1974 governs the privacy of records
    maintained on individuals by agencies of the federal government. 5 U.S.C. §§
    552a(1); 551(1). The Privacy Act does not apply to state hospitals, even if they
    accept federal funding through Medicaid. St. Michael’s Convalescent Hosp. v.
    State of California, 
    643 F.2d 1369
    , 1373–74 (9th Cir. 1981). Because VCMC is
    not an agency of the federal government, the district court did not err in finding
    that Taft’s proposed additional claims against VCMC and Lashbrook under the
    Privacy Act would be futile.
    AFFIRMED.
    3