Johnson v. IMA Medical Research
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-08508
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Johnson v. IMA Medical Research, Judge McMahon dismissed Robert Johnson’s complaint, finding no plausible federal claim against the private defendants.
Robert W. Johnson’s case was dismissed at the court’s screening stage. The defendants were not required to face the claims in further proceedings, and Johnson was not allowed to amend the complaint. The court also denied him fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
Robert W. Johnson sued IMA Medical Research, P.C., IMA Research, IMA, and The IMA Group, P.C., alleging that they solicited him to participate in a harmful clinical trial during a medical evaluation for benefits. He sought money damages and claimed discrimination, fraud, and violations of constitutional, federal, and state law.
The court said Johnson did not allege facts showing a federal constitutional or statutory violation. It also explained that the defendants were private parties and that Johnson had not shown they acted on behalf of a state, as required for a civil-rights claim under federal law.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint under the screening rules for cases filed without paying court fees and declined to allow an amended complaint because amendment would be futile. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. IMA Medical Research · No. 1:19-cv-08508
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 15, 2019
Background
Robert W. Johnson appeared without a lawyer and filed the action under the federal-question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
According to the complaint, Johnson went to an IMA clinic on July 9, 2019, for a medical evaluation related to Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability benefits. He alleged that clinic personnel solicited him through paperwork to participate in a pharmaceutical clinical trial unrelated to that evaluation. He claimed that he was pressured into signing an informed-consent agreement, told to keep the matter confidential, referred to a website advertising future drug trials, and prevented from using his cellphone or recording inside the clinic.
Johnson alleged discrimination and fraud and claimed that the defendants violated the Constitution and other federal and state laws. He sought monetary damages.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a complaint filed without prepaying fees must be dismissed if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court must also dismiss when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. At the same time, it must read a complaint filed without a lawyer liberally and consider the strongest claims suggested by the allegations.
The court concluded that Johnson had not alleged facts showing a federal constitutional or federal statutory claim. It stated that soliciting patients for clinical trials under the circumstances described in the complaint did not violate a constitutional or federal statutory provision. Because the allegations did not suggest a plausible federal claim, the complaint had to be dismissed.
The court further explained that, to the extent Johnson intended to assert constitutional or other civil-rights claims, those claims had to be treated as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute provides a remedy for violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority. The court found that the defendants were private parties, that Johnson alleged no facts connecting their actions to the state, and that he therefore had not stated a § 1983 claim against them.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court declined to give Johnson permission to file an amended complaint because it determined that the defects could not be fixed by amendment. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Johnson permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.