Wood v. Purdue Pharmasutical Company

Background

Shane M. Wood, who was incarcerated at the time and filed without a lawyer, sued Perdue Pharmaceutical Company. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. Wood’s complaint described two separate matters:

1. Wood alleged that he had spent 15 years abusing opioids after seeing a news report about Perdue’s production of opioids and a settlement involving multiple states. He said the addiction damaged his life and that he had been revived with naloxone on three occasions. In a later letter, he said he wanted to pursue a class action. 2. Wood alleged that on February 13, 2021, New York State Police officers entered his room at the Best Value Inn in Painted Post, New York, without a warrant or probable cause. He alleged that the officers used excessive force, searched the room, took him to a nearby Walmart, and publicly displayed him because they believed he had assaulted someone there. He said no charges were filed.

Opioid-related allegations

The court said the opioid allegations could potentially be understood as a product-liability claim based on diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires parties from different states and a claim exceeding $75,000. The court assumed, without deciding, that it had that jurisdiction.

Under New York law, product-liability claims may be based on strict liability, negligence, express warranty, or implied warranty. The plaintiff generally must show that a defective product caused the injury. The court found that Wood’s complaint did not provide enough facts to state such a claim. It did not identify specific products that Perdue made, sold, or marketed, and it did not allege that Wood had been prescribed or otherwise used a Perdue product and was injured by it. The court granted Wood permission to provide additional supporting facts if they existed.

Class-action request

The court denied Wood’s request to proceed as a class action. Federal law allows a person to represent himself, but a person who is not a lawyer cannot represent other people in court. Because Wood was not an attorney, he could not act as a class representative.

Steuben County allegations

The court interpreted the police-related allegations as potentially raising claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims against state actors who violate federal rights. The court said the allegations might support viable claims, but Wood had not identified the defendants who were personally involved in the events.

The court also held that venue—the proper federal court location for a case—was not proper in the Southern District of New York. The events occurred in Steuben County, which is in the Western District of New York, and Wood did not allege that relevant events occurred in the Southern District or that any defendant lived there. The court further held that the police-related claims were not properly joined with the unrelated claims against Perdue. It stated that Wood should file a new civil action in the Western District of New York if he wanted to pursue the police-related claims.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted Wood 60 days to file an amended complaint addressing the identified problems. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than add to it, so Wood would have to repeat any facts or claims he wanted the court to consider. The court required him to identify the relevant people, describe what each defendant allegedly did, provide approximate dates and locations, describe his injuries, and state the relief he sought.

The court ordered that no summons issue at that time. It stated that if Wood did not timely comply and could not show good cause for the failure, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.