Gayden v. Sackler Family
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-05918
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Gayden v. Sackler Family, Judge Swain gave Gayden 60 days to amend because the complaint did not establish federal jurisdiction.
John Matthew Gayden, Jr., M.D., must identify the defendants and plead facts establishing federal jurisdiction within 60 days if he wishes to continue the case; the entities or individuals referred to as the “Sackler Family” are the proposed defendants.
What happened
In Gayden v. Sackler Family, John Matthew Gayden, Jr., M.D., who is incarcerated and representing himself, sued the “Sackler Family.” He alleged that information about Oxycodone and Oxycontin misled him while he practiced medicine and sought damages related to his son’s 2007 opioid-overdose death.
The court said Gayden had not shown that his claims arose under federal law. He also had not provided enough information to establish diversity jurisdiction because he did not identify specific defendants or allege where each defendant was domiciled.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Gayden leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days and directed him to identify each defendant and provide facts establishing federal jurisdiction. The court warned that the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim if he does not comply without good cause, and denied permission to appeal without paying fees because any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Gayden v. Sackler Family · No. 1:22-cv-05918
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 1, 2022
Background
John Matthew Gayden, Jr., M.D., filed the action without a lawyer while incarcerated at Federal Correctional Complex Coleman in Florida. He named the defendants only as the “Sackler Family.” He alleged that members of that family were the sole stockholders of Purdue Pharma, LP, which manufactures opioids, and that Purdue’s medical specialists and drug representatives gave him misleading information about Oxycodone and Oxycontin. He sought $50 million based on those allegations and alleged another $50 million for the accidental overdose and wrongful death of his son in Florida in 2007.
The court had previously allowed Gayden to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court screened the complaint and explained that federal courts have limited jurisdiction. Federal-question jurisdiction requires a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. Diversity jurisdiction requires citizens of different states and more than $75,000 in controversy.
Jurisdictional Problems
The court concluded that Gayden did not identify a federal-law basis for his claims, and the allegations could not be liberally read as asserting a federal claim. The court therefore could not exercise federal-question jurisdiction.
The court also found that the complaint did not establish diversity jurisdiction. Although Gayden alleged that he had practiced medicine in Florida and was incarcerated there, he did not specifically plead his own state citizenship. Even assuming that he was a Florida citizen, the court could not determine whether the defendants were citizens of different states because Gayden had not named specific individuals or alleged facts about each individual defendant’s domicile.
Order
The court granted Gayden leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must identify each defendant by name, state the relevant facts supporting each claim, and, if Gayden relies on diversity jurisdiction, plead each defendant’s domicile. The court also directed him to include the relevant people’s names and titles, the events and their approximate dates and locations, his injuries, and the relief sought. The amended complaint will replace rather than supplement the original complaint, so any facts or claims he wants considered must be repeated.
The court did not decide whether Gayden’s underlying allegations about the medications or his son’s death entitled him to damages. It stated that if he fails to file a proper amended complaint within the allowed time and cannot show good cause, the complaint will 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. This was a procedural order because the court addressed federal jurisdiction and allowed amendment without reaching the merits of the claims.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.