Turner v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Inc
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se complaint filed by Terrence Turner on behalf of a third party, Jaren Jones, alleging injuries from a pharmaceutical drug. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of standing and denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Complaint dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing“Accordingly, the Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice pursuant to § 1915(e).” | agree with court The court correctly applied the *Lujan* standing test, noting that Turner alleged injuries suffered by Jones, not himself. The court correctly identified that a party generally lacks standing to sue for injuries suffered by another absent a specific theory of third-party standing, which Turner did not provide. The dismissal without prejudice is appropriate as standing is a curable defect. |
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis denied“Thus, the Court DENIES the motion to proceed IFP at this time.” | agree with court The court denied the IFP motion because the plaintiff lacks standing to sue. While IFP status is typically determined by financial means, the court's reasoning links the denial to the lack of a viable claim. Given the dismissal of the complaint, denying the motion 'at this time' is procedurally consistent, allowing for a renewed motion if an amended complaint is filed. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the lack of standing as the primary jurisdictional defect. It cites the correct Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authorities for the standing requirements and the duty to screen IFP complaints. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the facts presented in the complaint.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRENCE TURNER, Case No.: 23cv1721-JES (DEB)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DISMISSING COMPLAINT 14 GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS, PURSUANT TO SCREENING INC.; EVERNORTH HEALTH, INC. & 15 UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); and EXPRESS SCRIPTS; and KAISER 16 PERMANENTE MEDICAL FACILITY, (2) DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE 17 Defendants. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 18 19 [ECF No. 2]
21 On September 14, 2023, Plaintiff Terrence Turner filed the instant action and filed 22 a concurrent motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. After due 23 consideration and for the reasons set forth below, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s 24 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and DENIES the motion to proceed IFP. 25 I. BACKGROUND 26 Plaintiff Turner alleges to bring this lawsuit on behalf of a victim, Jaren Jones 27 (“Jones”), who resides in San Diego. ECF No. 1 at 2. He alleges that Jones suffers from 28 1 random and reoccurring seizures, and has been taking a drug named “Zonisamide” to 2 manage the seizures. Id. After a few weeks of using the drug, he alleges that Jones 3 suffered side effects from the drug that were atypical and severe. Id. Upon telling medical 4 staff about the issues, he alleges that Jones was only prescribed a higher dose of the 5 medication and the staff did nothing else to try to resolve the issues. Id. He alleges that 6 the drug is unsafe due to the severe side effects. Id. at 3. Based on these factual 7 allegations, Plaintiff Turner asserts violations of various federal statutes. Id. at 4-5. 8 II. Screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 9 A complaint filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), is subject 10 to a mandatory and sua sponte review by the Court. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 11 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails 12 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a 13 defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). To pass screening, all 14 complaints must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 15 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 16 Standing to sue is a jurisdictional requirement, and a party invoking federal 17 jurisdiction has the burden of establishing it. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 18 555, 561 (1992); see also Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975) (standing is a 19 “threshold question in every federal case”). Jurisdictional defects, including standing, 20 must be raised by courts sua sponte. B.C. v. Plumas Unified Sch. Dist., 192 F.3d 1260, 21 1264 (9th Cir. 1999). To show that a party has standing, he must establish that: (1) he 22 suffered an “injury in fact;” (2) there is causal connection between the injury and the 23 allegedly wrongful conduct; and (3) the injury would likely be redressed by a favorable 24 decision. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61. 25 Here, the entirety of Turner’s complaint is centered around an injury that was not 26 suffered by him, but rather by another individual, Jones. A party generally has no 27 standing to sue for an injury suffered by another. Cf. Warth, 422 U.S. at 502 (“Petitioners 28 must allege and show that they personally have been injured, not that injury has been 1 || suffered by other, unidentified members . .. which they purport to represent.”). Turner 2 || puts forth no other theories that might support third party standing. Thus, he fails to meet 3 burden under Lujan and has not shown that he has standing to sue for the allegations 4 the complaint. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice 5 || pursuant to § 1915(e). 6 III. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 7 Plaintiff Turner has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). ECF 8 || No. 2. However, the financial information therein is all based on Turner’s finances and as 9 || discussed above, he does not have standing to sue based on the complaint. Thus, the 10 ||Court DENIES the motion to proceed IFP at this time. 11 IV. CONCLUSION 12 For the reasons discussed above, the Court DISMISSES the complaint pursuant to 13 U.S.C. § 1915 for lack of standing and DENIES the motion to proceed IFP. The Clerk 14 directed to close the case. 15 Plaintiff may reopen this case by filing an amended complaint if he can cure the 16 defects in the complaint within 30 days of this order. An amended complaint must be 17 ||accompanied by payment of the filing fee or a renewed motion to proceed IFP. If Plaintiff 18 || fails to comply with these instructions, this case will remain dismissed and closed without 19 || further action from the Court. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 0 Dated: September 22, 2023 “| ie SF amecae ot 23 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. United States District Judge 25 26 27 28