Grissom v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Background

Damion E. Grissom, an inmate in the Sonoma County Jail, filed a civil-rights complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). The court separately granted him permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Grissom alleged that CDCR notified him of a security breach in its computer system that may have resulted in the disclosure of his personal medical information. He alleged that his credit, housing, public benefits, and employment prospects may have been adversely affected. CDCR was the only defendant.

Screening standard

Because Grissom was a prisoner suing a governmental entity, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also explained that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a constitutional or federal-law right by someone acting under state authority.

Court’s analysis

The court identified two problems with the complaint. First, it held that the Eleventh Amendment barred a federal damages suit against CDCR for the money damages Grissom sought. Second, Grissom did not identify a constitutional right or other federal law that the alleged security breach violated and that provided him with a legally recognized claim. The court noted that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act does not provide a private cause of action, citing a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Disposition

The court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. It ordered the clerk to enter judgment and close the file. Judge Jeffrey S. White signed the order on December 8, 2022.