## Facts

- Joseph Van Zee enlisted in the U.S. Army and was required to undergo a background check.
- Van Zee disclosed that he had a juvenile record and signed release forms authorizing disclosure of his juvenile probation and court records for the background investigation.
- Marilyn Hanson, the Hyde County, South Dakota clerk of courts, disclosed Van Zee’s juvenile court records to the Army recruiter.
- After receiving the juvenile records, the recruiter canceled Van Zee’s enlistment.
- Van Zee sued Hanson under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the disclosure violated a Fourteenth Amendment constitutional right to informational privacy.

## Issues

1. Whether disclosure of juvenile court records to an Army recruiter, where the plaintiff signed releases authorizing disclosure for the background check, stated a Fourteenth Amendment informational-privacy claim actionable under § 1983.
2. Whether the district court’s consideration of release forms not attached to the complaint required conversion of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to summary judgment under Rule 12(d), and whether any failure to follow Rule 56 procedures warranted reversal.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- Van Zee did not plausibly allege a constitutional informational-privacy violation because his releases defeated any legitimate expectation of confidentiality as to the recruiter.
- The alleged disclosure did not meet the circuit’s stringent threshold for constitutional liability (requiring circumstances akin to “shocking degradation,” “egregious humiliation,” or a “flagrant breach of a pledge of confidentiality”).
- Even if the district court should have treated the motion as one for summary judgment after considering the releases, any Rule 12(d) error was harmless under 28 U.S.C. § 2111 because the outcome would not change.

## Legal Principles

- A § 1983 claim requires state action and deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law.
- The Eighth Circuit recognizes only a narrow constitutional protection against disclosure of highly personal information; liability requires “egregious” disclosure meeting a high constitutional threshold.
- A plaintiff asserting constitutional informational privacy must plausibly show a legitimate expectation of confidentiality in the information disclosed.
- Under Rule 12(d), when matters outside the pleadings are considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the motion generally must be treated as one for summary judgment and the parties given Rule 56 procedures.
- Appellate courts will not reverse for procedural error that does not affect substantial rights; harmless error is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2111.

## Conclusion

Because Van Zee authorized disclosure of his juvenile records for the Army’s background investigation, he lacked a legitimate expectation of confidentiality as to the recruiter and did not plead an “egregious” constitutional privacy violation; any procedural defect in considering the releases at the pleading stage was harmless.


Van Zee v. Hanson, 630 F.3d 1126 (8th Cir. 2011)