McIver v. FDA Food and Drug Administration

Background

Tamicko D. Murray McIver filed the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees. She alleged that food purchased at local supermarkets made her sick, that she bought food she described as “fake” or “not real,” and that “ghost ingredients” allowed people to be poisoned at a high price. She sought $10,000 in damages from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Screening standard

Because McIver was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of an action that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also explained that it must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the claims.

The court stated that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read generously, but they still must provide enough facts to make a legally valid claim plausible under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Claims against the federal agencies

The court held that sovereign immunity barred McIver’s claims for money damages against the FDA, CDC, and FTC. Sovereign immunity generally prevents federal courts from hearing money-damages claims against the federal government and its agencies unless the government has waived that protection.

The court considered the Federal Tort Claims Act, which can waive sovereign immunity for certain injuries caused by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. It found that the complaint did not suggest that McIver’s claims involved tortious conduct by federal employees. The court therefore concluded that the Act did not waive immunity for these claims and dismissed them for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).

Leave to amend

The court denied leave to amend, meaning McIver was not given permission to file a revised complaint in this action. Although courts generally allow a self-represented plaintiff to amend defective pleadings, the court found that the jurisdictional defect could not be corrected by amendment.

Warning and appeal

The court stated that an earlier order had warned McIver that continued filing of nonmeritorious cases could lead to an injunction. That warning remained in effect. The court additionally warned that further lawsuits in that court could result in an order barring her from filing new actions without prepaying fees unless she first obtained court permission.

The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

Disposition

Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also denied leave to amend, issued the stated warning about future fee-free filings, denied fee-free status for an appeal, and directed entry of judgment.