Shaun A. Johnson and Katherine E. Johnson v. Ellison
Shaun A. Johnson and Katherine E. Johnson v. Keith Ellison, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Minnesota; Brooke Cunningham, M.D., in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Health; and Fairview Health Services, d/b/a M Health Fairview
- Patrick Schiltz
- 0:26-cv-02795
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Johnson v. Ellison, Judge Schiltz dismissed all federal claims against Minnesota officials and a private hospital over a minor child's withheld medical records, with the state-law claim dismissed without prejudice.
Parents seeking access to their minor child's medical records from a private health system, and anyone considering federal civil-rights or HIPAA claims against private healthcare entities. The ruling confirms that private hospitals are generally not subject to § 1983 suits and that HIPAA cannot be enforced through individual lawsuits in federal court.
What happened
In Johnson v. Ellison, No. 26-CV-2795, Shaun and Katherine Johnson sued Minnesota's Attorney General, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Health, and Fairview Health Services after Fairview allegedly refused to give them access to their minor child J.J.'s medical records. The Johnsons claimed that Fairview relied on Minnesota law to justify the withholding, and they brought that same allegation as the basis for their claims against the state officials. They asserted three claims against Fairview: one under state law, one under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and one under the federal civil-rights statute 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
At a hearing on September 2, 2026, the case shifted significantly. Fairview clarified that it was not claiming Minnesota law permitted or required its actions — and in fact conceded that Minnesota law requires it to provide the records to the Johnsons. Fairview's position was simply that it never withheld any records in the first place. The Johnsons also conceded that HIPAA does not give private individuals the right to sue in court.
Judge Patrick J. Schiltz granted the state officials' motion to dismiss — with prejudice and on the merits — because Fairview's clarification eliminated any basis for suing them. As for Fairview, Judge Schiltz granted in part and denied in part its motion: the HIPAA claim failed because individuals cannot sue under HIPAA, and the § 1983 claim failed because Fairview is a private entity and was not acting under color of state law, so both federal claims were dismissed with prejudice and on the merits. With no federal claims remaining, the court declined to keep the state-law claim and dismissed it without prejudice, allowing it to be refiled in state court.
The detailed version
- Shaun A. Johnson and Katherine E. Johnson v. Ellison · No. 0:26-cv-02795
- Patrick Schiltz
- Sept. 3, 2026
Background
Plaintiffs Shaun A. Johnson and Katherine E. Johnson brought this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and their minor child, J.J., alleging that Fairview Health Services (doing business as M Health Fairview) refused to provide them access to J.J.'s medical records. Because the Johnsons believed Fairview was relying on Minnesota law to justify withholding those records, they also sued Keith Ellison in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Minnesota and Brooke Cunningham, M.D., in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Health (together, the "State Defendants").
Claims Asserted
The Johnsons asserted the following claims against Fairview:
- A state-law claim under Minn. Stat. § 144.292 (a Minnesota statute governing access to medical records).
- A federal claim under HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), a federal law governing the privacy and accessibility of health information.
- A federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows individuals to sue for violations of their constitutional rights committed by persons acting under color of state law; the Johnsons alleged a violation of their substantive due process rights.
The claims against the State Defendants were premised on the allegation that Fairview relied on Minnesota law in withholding J.J.'s records.
Key Developments at the Hearing
At the September 2, 2026 hearing on defendants' motions to dismiss, two critical clarifications emerged:
- Fairview's position: Fairview made clear that it was not claiming its actions were required or permitted by Minnesota law. In fact, Fairview conceded that Minnesota law requires it to provide the records to the Johnsons. Its defense was simply that it never withheld any of J.J.'s records. - The Johnsons' concession: The Johnsons conceded that there is no private right of action under HIPAA — meaning individuals cannot sue in federal court to enforce HIPAA's requirements.
Rulings on the State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Because Fairview disclaimed any reliance on Minnesota law, the entire factual premise for the Johnsons' claims against the State Defendants collapsed. The court granted the State Defendants' motion to dismiss, and all claims against Ellison and Cunningham were dismissed with prejudice and on the merits.
Rulings on Fairview's Motion to Dismiss
The court granted in part and denied in part Fairview's motion to dismiss.
HIPAA Claim — Dismissed With Prejudice and on the Merits
The HIPAA claim failed because the Johnsons themselves conceded there is no private right of action under HIPAA. The court cited Eighth Circuit precedent for this settled principle. This claim was dismissed with prejudice and on the merits.
§ 1983 Claim — Dismissed With Prejudice and on the Merits
The § 1983 claim failed because Fairview is a private entity. A § 1983 claim requires that the defendant act "under color of state law" — meaning the defendant must be a government actor or must have acted with the involvement or authority of the state. The court found no conceivable basis for treating Fairview as a state actor. Importantly, Fairview not only disclaimed reliance on Minnesota law but conceded that state law actually required it to provide the records. The court also noted in a footnote that even if Fairview had claimed to be acting in compliance with state law, that alone would not be enough to make it a state actor under Supreme Court precedent. This claim was dismissed with prejudice and on the merits.
State-Law Claim — Dismissed Without Prejudice
With both federal claims dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction (the authority a federal court has to hear related state-law claims alongside federal ones) over the remaining state-law claim under Minn. Stat. § 144.292. The court cited Eighth Circuit precedent for the general practice of dismissing state-law claims without prejudice when all federal claims are resolved. That claim was dismissed without prejudice, meaning the Johnsons are not barred from pursuing it in another forum, such as state court.
Disposition Summary
- State Defendants' motion to dismiss: Granted; all claims against Ellison and Cunningham dismissed with prejudice and on the merits. - Fairview's motion to dismiss: Granted in part and denied in part. - Federal claims (HIPAA and § 1983): Dismissed with prejudice and on the merits. - State-law claim (Minn. Stat. § 144.292): Dismissed without prejudice. - Judgment to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.