Seabrook v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Background

James Seabrook, who was detained at the Manhattan Detention Center, brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Janssen Research & Development LLC, and Johnson & Johnson failed to warn his doctors about the risks of Zyprexa. He further alleged that, after taking the medication, he developed a painful breast mass and received only ibuprofen from correctional staff. He also alleged that he was prejudged because of his physical appearance and subjected to improperly conducted strip searches.

The defendants named in the complaint were Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Janssen Research & Development LLC, Johnson & Johnson, Michael Latunji, Bessie Flores-Clemente, Natasha Myles, Jacques Hacquebord, and Excerpta Media Inc. The opinion states that Seabrook did not otherwise identify Excerpta Media.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires review of certain prisoner complaints and dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to give a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief, supported by enough facts to make the claim plausible.

For the medical-treatment allegations against correctional staff, the court treated the claims as arising under the Fourteenth Amendment and § 1983 because Seabrook was a pretrial detainee. He needed to allege facts showing both a sufficiently serious medical condition and that staff intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to take reasonable steps despite knowing, or having reason to know, of an excessive health or safety risk. The court concluded that the complaint did not provide enough facts to show that correctional staff failed to act reasonably, knew or should have known of an excessive risk, or did more than disagree with Seabrook about his treatment.

The court also treated the strip-search allegations as a possible Fourth Amendment claim. It concluded that Seabrook had not identified facts showing that any particular strip search violated the Constitution.

A § 1983 claim also requires facts showing each defendant’s direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. The court found that Seabrook did not explain how Latunji, Flores-Clemente, Myles, or Hacquebord personally violated his rights. He also did not identify the correctional staff involved in the alleged strip search.

The court said the claims concerning the alleged failure to warn could be construed as claims under New York law. The court could potentially hear those claims together with the federal claims under supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case. It also said diversity jurisdiction might be available if the parties were citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Seabrook could include those claims in an amended complaint or pursue them in New York state court. If he continued to assert claims against Excerpta Media, he needed to describe how that entity participated in the relevant conduct.

Disposition

The court granted Seabrook leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and had to repeat any facts or claims he wanted the court to consider. The court directed him to provide facts about the people involved, what each defendant did or failed to do, when and where events occurred, his injuries, and the relief requested. No summons would issue at that time. The order warned that if Seabrook did not amend within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

The opinion is a procedural screening order: it granted leave to amend rather than resolving the ultimate merits of Seabrook’s claims.