Butler v. Johnson & Johnson
2:23-cv-07497
E.D.N.YNov 17, 2023Background:
- Pro se inmate Timothy Butler filed two §1983 complaints while incarcerated: one against Sazerac Company (Fireball alcohol content) and one against Johnson & Johnson (phenylephrine decongestant), each seeking $150,000.
- Complaints allege consumer fraud (mislabeling/ineffectiveness) and quantify past purchases but do not allege any constitutional injury or conduct by state actors.
- Butler submitted in forma pauperis (IFP) applications; the Court found him financially eligible and granted IFP status.
- The Court screened the complaints under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A and determined the complaints failed to state a plausible §1983 claim because defendants are private entities and no state action or constitutional deprivation was alleged.
- The Court also found subject-matter jurisdiction lacking: no federal-question claim remained and diversity jurisdiction was not established because Butler omitted his pre-incarceration domicile and did not plead defendants’ states of incorporation/principal places of business or adequate facts supporting the $75,000+ amount-in-controversy.
- The Court dismissed the complaints but granted Butler leave to amend within 30 days to attempt to cure pleading defects; it cautioned about the §1915(g) three-strikes rule (no strikes imposed now) and denied IFP for any appeal as not taken in good faith.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFP eligibility | Butler says he is indigent and seeks IFP | N/A (no opposition) | IFP granted for both cases |
| §1983 sufficiency / state action | Butler invokes §1983 for alleged fraud by private companies | Defendants are private entities; no state actor alleged | Dismissed for failure to state a §1983 claim (no state action or constitutional deprivation) |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (federal question / diversity) | Butler asserts diversity jurisdiction and $150,000 damages | N/A (no jurisdictional facts pled for defendants) | No federal-question jurisdiction; diversity not established (missing domiciles/incorporation/principal place of business; amount doubtful) |
| Leave to amend / §1915(g) consequences | Butler implicitly asks to proceed and recover damages | N/A | Court grants one opportunity to amend within 30 days; warns about §1915(g) three-strikes rule; no strikes imposed now; IFP for appeal denied |
Key Cases Cited:
- Potnick v. Eastern State Hospital, 701 F.2d 243 (2d Cir. 1983) (two-step IFP screening and merits consideration under §1915)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain facts showing plausible entitlement to relief)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Sykes v. James, 13 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 1993) (§1983 requires state action and deprivation of federal rights)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005) (complete diversity requirement for supplemental jurisdiction context)
- Pyskaty v. Wide World of Cars, LLC, 856 F.3d 216 (2d Cir. 2017) (amount-in-controversy must be reasonably probable)
- Shomo v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2009) (pro se plaintiffs ordinarily given leave to amend)
- Deleon v. Doe, 361 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2004) (district courts should carefully state reasons for dismissal relevant to §1915(g) strikes)