Gremmels v. Somkin

Background

Christian Gremmels filed a complaint against Dr. Anthony Somkin, Sutter Health, Cialis Eli Lilly & Co., Walgreens Co., John George Hospital, Oakland Police, and San Francisco Police. He alleged that Dr. Somkin prescribed Cialis Extended Formula between 2005 and 2007 without evidence of erectile problems, continued prescribing it after Gremmels reported negative side effects, and that the medication contributed to hospitalizations, arrests, and a later diagnosis of Peyronie’s Disease.

Gremmels proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court therefore had to screen his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally valid claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the complaint did not adequately establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case. Although Gremmels identified federal-question jurisdiction, he did not identify a specific federal statute or constitutional right that had allegedly been violated. The complaint referred generally to medical malpractice and undefined “pharmaceutical law.” The court explained that medical malpractice is ordinarily a state-law claim and could not determine whether the reference to pharmaceutical law identified a federal statute.

The court also found that the complaint did not establish diversity jurisdiction. It stated that Gremmels resides in California and that several defendants were California residents or entities, including Dr. Somkin, Sutter Health, Oakland Police Department, San Francisco Police Department, and John George Psychiatric Pavilion.

The only specific claim the court could identify was medical malpractice. Applying California’s deadline for such claims, the court concluded that the claim appeared untimely. The complaint indicated that Gremmels knew of the alleged injury no later than 2011, when he was diagnosed with Peyronie’s Disease, while the case was filed in 2021.

Order

The court found that the claims were insufficiently pleaded and issued an order to show cause. It required Gremmels, by October 29, 2021, either to file an amended complaint correcting the identified problems or to respond explaining the basis for federal jurisdiction and why the claims were adequately alleged. The court stated that if he did not respond, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed. The order did not itself dismiss the case. The previously scheduled case-management conference was continued to December 3, 2021.

Judge

The opinion was signed by Joseph C. Spero, Chief Magistrate Judge.