Somerset v. Partners Pharmacy, LLC

Background

Jerry Somerset, representing himself and proceeding without paying filing fees, sued Partners Pharmacy, LLC under asserted federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. Somerset alleged that Partners Pharmacy intentionally used his vehicle to transport opioid drugs in violation of federal and state regulations. He also alleged emotional distress, lost income, and the unlawful taking of his vehicle. He sought $75 million for “loss of human rights” and disability-related equal treatment.

The court noted that Somerset resides in New Jersey and that Partners Pharmacy is located in New Jersey. It also found that Somerset mailed an identical complaint to a federal court in Pennsylvania on the same day. The court had previously dismissed a separate filing in the Southern District of New York as duplicative of this case.

Court’s Reasoning

Because Somerset was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented pleadings are read liberally but still must comply with the requirement to provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

The court relied on the claim-preclusion doctrine, also called res judicata. That doctrine generally prevents a party from bringing later claims arising from the same underlying facts after a prior final judgment. The court reviewed Somerset’s prior related state and federal litigation and relied on the dismissal order in his earlier federal case in New Jersey, which had held that the same underlying transactions were covered by claim preclusion even though Somerset had added allegations about opioids.

Although claim preclusion is ordinarily raised by the defendant, the court stated that it could apply the doctrine on its own because avoiding repetitive litigation and inconsistent decisions serves the interests of the parties and the courts.

Disposition

The court dismissed Somerset’s complaint on claim-preclusion grounds under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Judge Colleen McMahon declined to grant leave to amend because the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also warned that continued duplicative or otherwise meritless litigation could result in an order requiring Somerset to show why he should not be barred from filing new actions without prior permission. Finally, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Somerset permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.