Murphy, Esq. v. Hershey Chocolate Corporation

Background

Shannon O. Murphy, Esq., Sr. represented himself and proceeded without paying the filing fee. He alleged that he became ill after eating Hershey’s “Mr. Good Bar” candy bar. According to the complaint, Hershey apparently sent him two letters, each containing a $25 check, which he viewed as insufficient compensation for his illness. The complaint asserted breach of contract, negligence, fraud, and discrimination. Murphy also attached a psychiatric discharge note dated October 28, 2015.

The complaint alleged diversity jurisdiction, which is a form of federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenships and the amount in dispute. The opinion states that Murphy did not identify his own citizenship or Hershey’s citizenship. The case was transferred from the Eastern District of California to the Northern District of California because Murphy resided in this District and the injury appeared to have occurred here.

Screening analysis

Because Murphy was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint before directing the United States Marshal to serve Hershey. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court had to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court applied the same basic pleading standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: the complaint had to provide a short and plain statement with enough factual matter to make a claim plausible and give the defendant fair notice.

The court held that the complaint did not clearly state a legally cognizable claim or provide facts supporting one. For each of the four asserted claims, it was unclear what facts or legal authorities supported the claim. The court also could not determine whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction because the complaint did not state the parties’ citizenships. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and identified the jurisdictional allegations as deficient.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Murphy could file an amended complaint by September 18, 2020, identifying each claim clearly, stating the specific facts and actors related to each claim, and alleging the basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. If he did not amend by the deadline, the court stated that it would direct reassignment to a district judge and recommend that the newly assigned judge dismiss the case. The court also stated that Murphy could voluntarily dismiss the case by filing a one-page notice, which would operate as a dismissal without prejudice.