McCarthy v. Pfizer, Inc.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:22-cv-09455
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
McCarthy v. Pfizer, Judge Failla dismissed Ana McCarthy’s complaint as frivolous and found she lacked standing.
Ana McCarthy’s lawsuit against Pfizer, Inc. was dismissed, and the case was closed. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In McCarthy v. Pfizer, Ana McCarthy, representing herself, claimed Pfizer was violating a Panamanian Supreme Court order by refusing to recall its COVID-19 vaccine in Panama. She paid the filing fee and also sought emergency court relief.
The court said the complaint did not provide facts showing that any law had been violated, and that the complaint’s attached documents appeared to contradict her allegations. The court also found that McCarthy did not allege a concrete personal injury, so she lacked standing to sue and the court lacked authority to hear the case.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla dismissed the complaint as frivolous, declined to allow an amended complaint because amendment would be futile, and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- McCarthy v. Pfizer, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-09455
- Katherine Failla
- Nov. 14, 2022
Background
Ana McCarthy filed this action against Pfizer, Inc. without a lawyer. She alleged that Pfizer was in contempt of an order of the Panamanian Supreme Court because it had not recalled its COVID-19 vaccine in Panama. She alleged that both she and Pfizer were citizens of New York and asserted that the court had jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. The complaint did not explain what injury McCarthy personally suffered from Pfizer’s alleged conduct. She attached Panamanian executive orders and an apparent Panamanian Supreme Court opinion and order, which the court said appeared to contradict her allegations.
McCarthy also filed a request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The opinion states that the filing fee had been paid.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that it could dismiss a paid complaint if it was frivolous, meaning it lacked an arguable legal or factual basis, or if the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the dispute. The court was required to read McCarthy’s self-represented filing liberally, but concluded that her allegations were irrational and that no legal theory supported them. The court found that the complaint supplied no factual basis to determine that any law had been violated, and that the pleading and attached exhibits contradicted her legal theory.
The court alternatively held that McCarthy lacked standing. Standing requires a plaintiff to show a concrete and particularized injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a remedy the court can provide. The court found that McCarthy had not alleged any concrete injury caused by Pfizer’s conduct. It therefore concluded that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over her claims.
Disposition
The court dismissed McCarthy’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It declined to grant leave to amend because it found that the complaint’s defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn remaining dates, and close the case.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.