Robinson v. Magna Care

Background

LAKIEA ROBINSON proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. She filed this action against Magna Care and, in her amended complaint, added Coca-Cola; Coca-Cola employees Mike Van Aken, Dianna Hollerhan, David Prespitino, and John Sweeny; and Local Teamsters 812. The opinion states that the action was one of six complaints related to or arising from Robinson’s employment at a Coca-Cola factory, which ended in 2017.

Robinson alleged that Magna Care had provided health, dental, and prescription coverage for her and her children through Coca-Cola for 12 years. She alleged that Magna Care released approximately 12 years of medical, dental, and prescription billing information to Coca-Cola without her or her children’s consent and without a court order. She also referred to Magna Care’s conduct concerning a separate workers’ compensation case. She sought $5 million for herself and $5 million for each of her two adult children.

Claims and screening standard

Because Robinson was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also noted that it must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court had previously directed Robinson to amend her original complaint. In that earlier order, it explained that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act does not give individuals a private right to sue for a violation and directed her to provide facts supporting the other laws she cited, including the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and the No Surprises Act.

Court’s reasoning

The court held that Robinson could not represent her children because she was not a licensed lawyer. The children were not listed as plaintiffs and had not signed the amended complaint. The court therefore dismissed without prejudice any claims Robinson was asserting on their behalf.

As to Robinson’s own claims, the amended complaint invoked the Tenth Amendment, Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, unspecified discrimination, confidentiality, state law, and various privacy concepts. The court found it unclear how the alleged disclosure of billing information violated those laws or doctrines. It stated that the Tenth Amendment did not appear relevant to the alleged disclosure by private parties and that the Constitution generally regulates government conduct, not private parties. The court also found no apparent basis for a discrimination claim and determined that general references to privacy and confidentiality did not identify a statutory claim.

The court concluded that the amended complaint failed to provide the short and plain statement required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Although pro se pleadings must be read liberally, the court said that this obligation did not require it to create a novel claim from unclear allegations. The court also noted that Robinson was pursuing claims against Coca-Cola, Mike Van Aken, Dianna Hollerhan, David Prespitino, John Sweeny, and Teamsters Local 812 in other pending suits. Because the claims in this case might overlap with those suits, it dismissed Robinson’s claims against those defendants without prejudice.

Disposition

The court dismissed without prejudice Robinson’s claims against Coca-Cola, Mike Van Aken, Dianna Hollerhan, David Prespitino, John Sweeny, and Teamsters Local 812. It also dismissed without prejudice any claims brought on behalf of Robinson’s children. The remaining federal claims in the amended complaint were dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

The court declined to give Robinson another opportunity to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment.