Grajales v. Eli Lilly and Company

Background

Jose Antonio Grajales filed this case without a lawyer, alleging adverse health consequences after taking Zyprexa. The court had previously dismissed his First Amended Complaint because it did not identify a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction and was filed too late. The court allowed him to file another amended complaint.

Grajales filed a Second Amended Complaint on November 14, 2024. The court found that it was substantially the same as the earlier complaint. Among the changes, Grajales increased one requested amount from $3,000 to $5,000 and stated that he wanted to sue for $5 million. He otherwise alleged the same underlying facts and injuries, sued the same defendants, and sought the same relief.

Federal-question jurisdiction

The court first considered whether the complaint raised a federal question—that is, a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court characterized Grajales’s main allegations as state-law product-liability and medical-malpractice claims.

Because Grajales also sued unidentified state and federal judges, the court considered whether the complaint might assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The court held that Grajales did not identify any specific judges or allege facts showing that any judge was personally involved in the events underlying his claims. It therefore dismissed the claims against the unidentified New York City Civil Court judges and United States judges for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The court found no other basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

Diversity jurisdiction

The court also considered diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires the plaintiff and defendants to be citizens of different states. The complaint listed New York addresses for Grajales, Eli Lily and Company, and Dr. Foo. The court said those allegations did not show the required difference in citizenship and therefore did not establish diversity jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It directed the Clerk of Court to mail Grajales a copy of the order, enter judgment of dismissal, and close the case. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The opinion does not decide the merits of Grajales’s product-liability or medical-malpractice allegations.