United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Jeffrey J. Helmick, United States District Judge
se Plaintiff Douglas Harris filed this action under
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”), 29
U.S.C. § 794, the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(“HIPPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1320, et seq
against Thomas McKin, Demetraia Simpson, and Jennifer
Delaney. He identifies McKin as the attorney for “LMHA,
” which presumably is the Lucas Metropolitan Housing
Association. He does not identify or mention Simpson or
Delany in the Complaint. He appears to claim the Defendants
did not accept his requests for a reasonable accommodation of
his disability. He does not specify the relief he seeks.
Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (Doc. No. 2). That Application is granted.
Complaint is missing necessary factual details, making it
difficult to decipher at points. He indicates he moved to
Ohio from New York. He contends he has a disability, but does
not specify what that disability is. It is possible he is
claiming post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”),
anxiety and depression as his disabilities, as he mentions
those conditions at the end of his Complaint. He contends he
requests a reasonable accommodation of a single family one
story home “with a fair market rent above 135%.”
He states when he arrived in Ohio, McKin demanded to see his
medical records. Plaintiff claims this is a violation of
“504, HIPAA, and ADA.” He states they have not
allowed him to be in any programs. He indicates he has over
15 reasonable accommodations and did not receive one answer.
He contends he asked to have a reasonable accommodation
request sent to a committee in Washington D.C. for 140% of
the fair market rent. He states they would not give him the
maximum days allowed to a person with disability claims.
Plaintiff states he wanted to find housing in Washington D.C
or in Denver Colorado but was told he should find a home in
Toledo. He alleges he found a house and turned in a
“RAFTA” and asked for 50% over fair market rents
but “they wouldn't give me the forms I
requested.” (Doc. No. 1 at 3). He states, “Now
because I ask too many times they say I'm aggressive and
want to take my voucher because of my PTSD, Anxiety and
Depression.” (Doc. No. 1 at 3).
pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag
v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam);
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), I am
required to dismiss an in forma pauperis action
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if it fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable
basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319 (1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th
Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99
F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). A claim lacks an arguable
basis in law or fact when it is premised on an indisputably
meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. A cause
of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted when it lacks “plausibility in the
Complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 564 (2007).
pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662,
677-78 (2009). The factual allegations in the pleading must
be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the
speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations
in the Complaint are true. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S.
at 555. The Plaintiff is not required to include detailed
factual allegations, but must provide more than “an
accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A
pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation
of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this
pleading standard. Id. In reviewing a Complaint, I
must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151
F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998).
initial matter, Plaintiff lists three Defendants but
identifies only McKin in the Complaint. There are no
allegations against any of the other Defendants. Although the
standard of review is liberal, it requires more than bare
assertions of legal conclusions. Lillard v. Shelby County
Bd. of Educ., 76 F.3d 716, 726-27 (6th Cir.1996). The
Complaint must give the Defendants fair notice of what the
Plaintiff's claims against them individually are and the
factual grounds upon which those claims rest. Bassett v.
National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 528 F.3d 426,
437 (6th Cir. 2008). Because Plaintiff has not identified
Simpson or Delaney in the Complaint and does not allege any
facts to connect them to the events he describes, he has not
met the basic pleading requirements of Federal Civil
Procedure Rule 8.
addition, Plaintiff contends that the Defendants violated the
Rehabilitation Act, HIPAA and the ADA. There is no private
right of action under HIPAA. See Shaull v. Med. Mut. of
Ohio, No. 3:05 CV 7291, 2007 WL 1796047, at *5 (N.D.
Ohio June 20, 2007)(this Court is not prepared to recognize a
private right of action under HIPAA…); Henry v.
Ohio Victims of Crime Compensation Program, 2007 WL
682427 at *2 (S.D.Ohio 2007). Furthermore, neither the ADA
nor the RA permit suits against individual employees or
supervisors. Williams v. McLemore, 247 Fed.Appx. 1,
8 (6th Cir. 2007) (“We have held repeatedly that the
ADA does not permit public employees or supervisors to be
sued in their individual capacities.”); Lee v.
Mich. Parole Bd., 104 Fed.Appx. 490, 493 (6th Cir. 2004)
(“[N]either the ADA nor the RA impose[s] liability upon
individuals.”); Tanney v. Boles, 400 F.Supp.2d
1027, 1044 (ED. Mich. 2005) (“[N]either the ADA nor the
RA allows suits against government officials in their
individual capacity.”). All of the Defendants listed in
the Complaint are individuals. Consequently, Plaintiff failed
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
considered and examined the pro se Plaintiff's
pleadings to determine their legal viability, I conclude they
fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is granted and this action is
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). I certify,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § ...