Johnson v. Pfizer
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-08249
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Johnson v. Pfizer, Judge McMahon dismissed the pro se action as frivolous and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
Robert W. Johnson and the 78 defendants, including companies, individuals, estates, medications, and health-care products named in the complaint.
What happened
In Johnson v. Pfizer, Robert W. Johnson sued 78 defendants, including pharmaceutical companies, individuals, estates, medications, and health-care products. He alleged harmful side effects, defective products, false advertising, and numerous other violations.
Johnson sought $500 trillion in punitive damages, $200 billion for future pain and suffering, and full ownership of the defendants’ corporations. The court reviewed the complaint under the law governing fee-free lawsuits and found that his claims were irrational and had no legal basis.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous, declined to allow an amended complaint, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied Johnson fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Pfizer · No. 1:19-cv-08249
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 31, 2020
Background
Robert W. Johnson, appearing without a lawyer, brought this action under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP).
Johnson sued 78 defendants, including pharmaceutical corporations, limited liability companies, individuals, estates of deceased individuals, medications, and dental and health-care products. The complaint listed alleged bases for jurisdiction and liability including defective products and drugs, harmful side effects, federal drug-administration violations, breach of contract, fraud, civil-rights and constitutional violations, and alleged criminal or opioid-related conduct.
Johnson alleged that he had used the listed medications since January 5, 2004, and experienced mental and physical side effects, including mood changes, psychological disorders, worsening back pain, dizziness, headaches, withdrawal symptoms, and lack of energy. He did not initially specify the relief requested. In a later filing, which the court treated as a supplement to the complaint, he requested $500 trillion in punitive damages, $200 billion for future pain and suffering, and full ownership of the defendants’ corporations.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss an IFP complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court must also dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide the dispute. Although courts read complaints filed without lawyers liberally, a claim is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in law or fact, including when its factual allegations are irrational or wholly incredible or its legal theory is indisputably meritless.
Court’s analysis and ruling
The court concluded that, even when read with the special consideration given to filings by people without lawyers, Johnson’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. Although courts generally give a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, the court found that amendment would be futile because the defects could not be cured.
The court therefore dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and declined to grant leave to amend. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, so IFP status was denied for purposes of an appeal. 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.