Changeflow GovPing Courts & Legal James W. Boyer v. Brady Thomas and Z. Shifflett
Priority review Enforcement Amended Final

James W. Boyer v. Brady Thomas and Z. Shifflett

Favicon for www.courtlistener.com US District Court NDIN Docket Feed
Filed
Detected
Email

Summary

James W. Boyer, a pro se prisoner plaintiff, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Urgent Care and the Auburn City Police Department violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act by improperly disclosing his medical records. The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because Boyer failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, having sued Sheriff Brady Thomas and Deputy Z. Shifflett without alleging their personal involvement in any HIPAA violation. The court further held that amendment would be futile because HIPAA confers no private right of action on individual plaintiffs.

“HIPAA prohibits the disclosure of medical records without the patient's consent.”

NDIN , verbatim from source
Why this matters

Healthcare providers and their legal counsel should be aware that while HIPAA prohibits unauthorized disclosure of medical records and imposes obligations on covered entities, the statute does not create a private right of action that patients can enforce through litigation. Inmate and prisoner plaintiffs attempting to bring HIPAA-based claims will likely face dismissal on the same grounds, as federal courts consistently hold that HHS is the sole enforcement authority.

AI-drafted from the source document, validated against GovPing's analyst note standards . For the primary regulatory language, read the source document .
Published by NDIN on courtlistener.com . Detected, standardized, and enriched by GovPing. Review our methodology and editorial standards .

About this source

GovPing monitors US District Court NDIN Docket Feed for new courts & legal regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 7 changes logged to date.

What changed

The court dismissed the prisoner's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. Boyer named Sheriff Brady Thomas and Deputy Z. Shifflett as defendants but did not allege they personally participated in any HIPAA violation. He also declined to sue Urgent Care and the Auburn City Police Department—the entities he claimed actually disclosed his records improperly. The court held that HIPAA confers no private right of action and that enforcement rests with the Department of Health and Human Services, not private plaintiffs. The court exercised its broad discretion to deny leave to amend, finding amendment would be futile. Affected parties should note that individuals cannot bring private lawsuits under HIPAA for unauthorized disclosure of medical records; only HHS may enforce the statute.

Archived snapshot

Apr 25, 2026

GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project
, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 6, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

James W. Boyer v. Brady Thomas and Z. Shifflett

District Court, N.D. Indiana

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION

JAMES W. BOYER,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 1:26 CV 139

BRADY THOMAS, and Z. SHIFFLETT,

Defendants.

OPINION and ORDER
James W. Boyer, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint alleging Urgent
Care and the Auburn City Police Department violated the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act (HIPPA) with his medical records. (DE # 1.) “A document filed
pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded,
must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
Nevertheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a prisoner
complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
Boyer sues Sheriff Brady Thomas and Deputy Z. Shifflett, but he does not allege
they were involved in the HIPPA violation. He does not sue Urgent Care and the
Auburn City Police Department even though he alleges they violated HIPPA. “HIPAA
prohibits the disclosure of medical records without the patient’s consent. See 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1320d–1 to d–7. However, without regard to whom he named as a defendant
“HIPPA confers no private right of action.” Stewart v. Parkview Hosp., [940 F.3d 1013,

1015](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4671766/tyquan-stewart-v-parkview-hospital/#1015) (7th Cir. 2019). Medical professionals are “bound by the statute’s disclosure
prohibitions and confidentiality requirements,” but the enforcement for violations is the
job of the Department of Health and Human Services and not private plaintiffs. Id. This complaint does not state a claim. “The usual standard in civil cases is to
allow defective pleadings to be corrected, especially in early stages, at least where
amendment would not be futile.” Abu-Shawish v. United States, 898 F.3d 726, 738 (7th

Cir. 2018). “District courts, however, have broad discretion to deny leave to amend a
complaint where the amendment would be futile.” Russell v. Zimmer, Inc., 82 F.4th 564,
572
(7th Cir. 2023). For the reasons explained, such is the case here.
For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
SO ORDERED.

Date: April 6, 2026
s/James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Citations

28 U.S.C. § 1915A court's authority to review and dismiss prisoner complaints
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) liberal construction standard for pro se complaints

Get daily alerts for US District Court NDIN Docket Feed

Daily digest delivered to your inbox.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

About this page

What is GovPing?

Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission

What's from the agency?

Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from NDIN.

What's AI-generated?

The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.

Last updated

Classification

Agency
NDIN
Filed
April 6th, 2026
Instrument
Enforcement
Branch
Judicial
Legal weight
Binding
Stage
Final
Change scope
Minor
Docket
1:26-cv-00139

Who this affects

Applies to
Healthcare providers Patients
Industry sector
6211 Healthcare Providers
Activity scope
Medical record disclosure Prisoner litigation Prisoner rights
Geographic scope
US-IN US-IN

Taxonomy

Primary area
Healthcare
Operational domain
Legal
Compliance frameworks
HIPAA
Topics
Data Privacy Civil Rights

Get alerts for this source

We'll email you when US District Court NDIN Docket Feed publishes new changes.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

You're subscribed!