Grajales v. Eli Lilly and Company

Background

Jose Antonio Grajales brought the action without a lawyer and paid the filing fees. He alleged that taking Zyprexa damaged his health. According to the amended complaint, he overdosed on Zyprexa in October 2002, was hospitalized at NYU Downtown Hospital for two days, and was treated for pneumonia. He also alleged that prescriptions from 2002 through 2009 caused high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol.

Grajales sued Eli Lilly and Company, which the opinion identifies as Zyprexa’s manufacturer; Mr. F. Foo, M.D., whom the opinion identifies as a doctor at NYU Downtown Hospital; unidentified New York City Civil Court judges; and unidentified United States civil judges. He sought injunctive relief and money damages. The amended complaint did not clearly state a basis for federal jurisdiction.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court explained that subject-matter jurisdiction is a federal court’s power to decide a case. Federal-question jurisdiction generally requires a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires citizenship in different states and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.

The court concluded that the core allegations appeared to be state-law product-liability and medical-malpractice claims involving Zyprexa, not federal claims. Although the complaint named state and federal judges, Grajales did not identify any particular judge or allege facts showing that a judge was personally involved in the alleged harm. The court therefore concluded that he did not state claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims against people acting under state law for violating federal rights, or under the federal constitutional claims described in the opinion as Bivens claims.

The court dismissed the claims against the unidentified New York City Civil Court judges and United States civil judges for failure to state a claim. It also concluded that Grajales had not alleged facts establishing diversity jurisdiction. The complaint listed New York addresses for Grajales, Eli Lilly and Company, and Dr. Foo and suggested that they were all New York citizens. The court therefore dismissed the state-law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Timeliness

The court stated that New York provides a three-year limitations period for product-liability claims and a two-year-and-six-month period for medical-malpractice claims. Because Grajales alleged that the relevant prescriptions continued through 2009, the court said he knew or had reason to know of his injuries by at least sometime in 2009. He filed the original complaint on August 8, 2023, more than fourteen years later.

The court said the claims appeared likely to be time-barred. It also found that Grajales had not provided facts suggesting that equitable tolling—a limited exception that can extend a filing deadline in certain circumstances—should apply. The court did not base the final dismissal on timeliness because Grajales had not yet established subject-matter jurisdiction and was proceeding without a lawyer.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Grajales 60 days to file a second amended complaint. The new complaint must provide an understandable statement showing why he is entitled to relief against each named defendant and why the federal court has jurisdiction. If he relies on federal-question jurisdiction, he must allege facts showing a violation of federal constitutional or statutory rights. If he relies on diversity jurisdiction, he must allege different-state citizenship and more than $75,000 in controversy. He must also allege facts showing that his claims are timely or that equitable tolling applies.

The court stated that no summons would issue at that time, and the defendants were not required to answer or otherwise respond unless the court later reviewed the second amended complaint and directed service. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The classification is procedural because the order dismissed claims on failure-to-state-a-claim and jurisdictional grounds without deciding the underlying product-liability or medical-malpractice claims.