Whether summary judgment is appropriate when patient record information is used in a court order application in violation of confidentiality regulations and no proper order exists

To investigate or prosecute a substance abuse program or a person holding the records, law enforcement personnel must obtain a court order premised upon a showing of good cause under 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2(b)(2)(C) & 42 C.F.R. § 2.66. To investigate or prosecute a patient, however, an order under 42 C.F.R. § 2.65 is required. Where information from patient records is shown to have been used in an application for a court order in violation of 42 C.F.R. § 2.66(c)(3) & (d)(2); and, no order under 42 C.F.R. § 2.65 appears in the materials of record, is summary judgment appropriate?I. The confidentiality of records of the identity, diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment of any patient which are maintained in connection with a substance use disorder treatment program is protected. (42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2(a)). In any proceeding conducted by any Federal authority, such records may be used or disclosed only as the regulations under 42 C.F.R. Part 2 permit. (42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2(g) & 42 C.F.R. §§ 2.12(d) & 2.13(a)). Is a coram nobis applicant entitled to a hearing; where, the evidence she seeks to present under 42 C.F.R. § 2.66(b), satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)(B)?II. In the matter of Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. III. 173 (1977), the Supreme Court wrote: “Summary actions ... should not be understood as breaking new ground but as applying principles established by prior decisions to the particular facts involved. ” (Id. @ 176). ii QUESTIONS PRESENTEDContinued Did the court of appeals err by applying hypothetical jurisdiction to summarily affirm a district court order where: i) prior Supreme Court decisions and separation-ofpowers principles forbid application of hypothetical jurisdiction; and, ii) a disputed issue of fact concerning the patient status of La Wanda Johnson is unresolved?