DEE TOWLES V. JAMES DZURENDA, No. 18-15253 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 22 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEE V. TOWLES, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-15253 D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00109-MMDWGC v. JAMES DZURENDA, NDOC Director; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 15, 2018** Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Nevada state prisoner Dee V. Towles appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) and verbal harassment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilhelm v. * 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). Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Towles’s claim alleging HIPAA violations because there is no private right of action under the statute. See Seaton v. Mayberg, 610 F.3d 530, 533 (9th Cir. 2010) (“HIPAA . . . provides no private right of action.” (citation omitted)). The district court properly dismissed Towles’s claim based on alleged verbal abuse by prison personnel because “verbal harassment generally does not violate the Eighth Amendment.” Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996), amended on denial of reh’g by 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998). We do not consider materials that were not before the district court. See Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2003) (a party generally may not add to or enlarge the record on appeal to include material that was not before the district court). We do not consider matters not raised before the district court, or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 18-15253

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.