Foster Taft v. Ventura County Medical Center; Carol Lashbrook

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOSTER TAFT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
VENTURA COUNTY MEDICAL
CENTER; CAROL LASHBROOK,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-55216
D.C. No.
2:20-cv-07856-MWF-E
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
DEC 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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.

-- 1 of 3 --

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

-- 2 of 3 --

(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

-- 3 of 3 --