Campbell v. Pfizer, Inc.
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:24-cv-04323
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Campbell v. Pfizer, Judge Chhabria dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and the state claims for lack of jurisdiction without leave to amend.
Dennis Campbell's federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and his state claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without leave to amend. Pfizer, Inc. prevailed in the dismissal, and the case was closed.
What happened
Campbell v. Pfizer, Inc. involved Dennis Campbell, a California state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, who sued Pfizer over alleged misrepresentations about its vaccine and related censorship. He asserted constitutional claims, California consumer-protection claims, and a claim under the Federal Trade Commission Act.
The court held that Pfizer was not a state actor for purposes of the civil-rights statute, and that the Federal Trade Commission Act does not allow consumers to sue directly. The court also found that Campbell had not adequately alleged federal jurisdiction over his state-law claims and had not alleged an economic injury because he did not buy the vaccine.
Judge Chhabria ordered the federal claims dismissed with prejudice and the state claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without leave to amend. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.
The detailed version
- Campbell v. Pfizer, Inc. · No. 3:24-cv-04323
- Vince Chhabria
- Jan. 15, 2025
Background
Dennis Campbell, identified as a California state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Pfizer, Inc. He alleged that Pfizer misled the public by overstating the effectiveness of its vaccine and censored people who threatened to disclose the truth. He alleged that these actions persuaded many people, including him, to receive the vaccine based on misrepresentations.
Campbell asserted claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, California's consumer-protection laws, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. The opinion states that Pfizer is incorporated and headquartered in Delaware. Campbell also sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee; the court states that request was granted in a separate order.
Screening standard
The court screened the complaint under the statutes requiring review of certain prisoner cases and cases filed without payment of the filing fee. Those statutes require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from a defendant protected from such relief.
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right and action by a person acting under state authority. The court also explained that a defendant's actions must have caused the alleged deprivation.
Court's analysis
The court concluded that Campbell had not stated a constitutional claim. Pfizer was not a state actor, and Campbell had not alleged a violation of the Constitution or federal law for purposes of § 1983.
The court also held that the Federal Trade Commission Act provides no private right of action, meaning that consumers cannot use that statute to bring a direct lawsuit for the alleged unfair trade practices.
As to the California claims, the court explained that federal jurisdiction based on citizenship generally requires parties from different states and more than $75,000 in controversy. The court found that Campbell had not adequately alleged the requirements for that type of jurisdiction.
The court added that, even if it had jurisdiction over the state-law claims, those claims would fail on their merits. Under California's False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law, a claimant must have suffered an injury in fact and lost money or property because of the alleged unfair competition. The court found that Campbell did not purchase the Pfizer vaccine and did not experience economic injury.
Disposition
The court ordered that the federal claims be dismissed with prejudice. It ordered that the state claims be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without leave to amend because, in the court's view, amendment could not cure the jurisdictional defects given the failure to state a claim under California law. The clerk was directed to enter a separate judgment and close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.