Washington v. CVS Pharmacy Inc.

Background

Sandra A. Washington, who was representing herself, filed a complaint against CVS Pharmacy Inc., WSC of NY, Inc., and All Fronts Insurance. She invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged that an incident occurred on January 13, 2024, between her and a security guard at a CVS Pharmacy in New York City.

The complaint did not describe the incident. Washington wrote “N/A” in the section asking about injuries and “in negotiation” in the section requesting relief. She did not name the security guard as a defendant. The exhibits included correspondence indicating that WSC of NY was identified as responsible for the security guard’s actions and that All Fronts would investigate the matter for its insurance company.

The court had previously allowed Washington to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Because she was proceeding without payment of those fees, the court was required to screen the complaint and dismiss it if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought relief from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it had to dismiss a case if it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The complaint must include enough factual detail to make liability plausible, rather than merely possible.

The court concluded that the complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because it alleged no facts describing the defendants’ conduct or explaining how their conduct violated Washington’s rights under state or federal law. Although the complaint suggested that an incident involving a security guard had occurred, it did not state facts suggesting that the security guard violated Washington’s rights. It also did not suggest that CVS Pharmacy, WSC of NY, or All Fronts violated her rights. The court understood the references to negotiation as apparently relating to settlement, not as allegations that All Fronts had violated her rights.

Disposition

The court dismissed Washington’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim, with 30 days’ leave to replead. An amended complaint must provide a short and plain statement and describe facts showing how each named defendant violated Washington’s rights. If Washington did not file an amended complaint within the permitted time, the court stated that it would direct the Clerk to enter judgment.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied Washington permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The court directed the Clerk to hold the matter open until a civil judgment is entered.

What the Opinion Does Not Decide

The opinion does not identify a specific cause of action, decide whether the January 13, 2024 incident occurred as Washington might allege, or decide the merits of any underlying injury or rights claim.