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. 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). 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-of-powers principles forbid application of hypothetical jurisdiction; and, ii) a disputed issue of fact concerning the patient status of La Wanda Johnson is unresolved?

III

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