Hankerson v. HIPPA

Background

Theresa Ann Hankerson filed the action using the court’s general complaint form and invoked federal-question jurisdiction. She appeared without a lawyer. The defendants named in the complaint included “HIPPA,” which the court said apparently referred to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and which Hankerson identified as part of the Department of Health; a Brooklyn post office branch; the Internal Revenue Service; Desiree Ellis; Path Jobs; Project Renewal; South Brooklyn Hospital; the New York City Housing Authority; Google; “Dark web site”; “vintage TV”; and “onion webs sites.”

Hankerson alleged that online activity involving Google, television, onion websites, and dark websites resulted in catfishing, cyberbullying, and discrimination, affecting her job registration and referrals. She also alleged that she was hospitalized from July 23 through August 1, 2023, after seeking to leave an emergency department; that HIPAA rights had been violated; and that her DNA was being passed to cellphone technology. She sought compensation, help moving forward with her career, criminal charges against Desiree Ellis, protective custody, and relocation.

The court had previously granted Hankerson permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. Under the statute governing such cases, the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that type of relief.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a complaint is factually frivolous when its allegations are clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic, or delusional, and that the court does not have to consider pure speculation and conjecture. Although courts must read complaints filed without lawyers generously and interpret them to raise the strongest claims they suggest, the plaintiff still must provide factual support.

The court found that Hankerson’s claims rested on her beliefs that the defendants were creating false online profiles, cyberbullying her, and discriminating against her through the internet. The court stated that she provided no factual basis for those allegations. It also found that her assertions about HIPAA violations and DNA being passed around through cellphones lacked plausible factual support. The court concluded that the allegations were conclusory suspicions that rose to the level of the irrational and therefore had to be dismissed as frivolous.

The court noted that Hankerson might have been attempting to assert a claim concerning involuntary hospitalization, but stated that the Southern District of New York might not be the appropriate venue for claims concerning hospitalization in Brooklyn. The court did not otherwise resolve such a claim on its merits.

Ruling

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court declined to grant leave to amend because it appeared that the defects could not be cured by amendment. It terminated all other pending matters, directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment, and certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.