Harrison v. Diamond Pharmacy Services
4:21-cv-00063
| W.D. Ky. | Mar 15, 2022Background
- Pro se plaintiff James Harrison, formerly incarcerated at Green River Correctional Complex, sued Diamond Pharmacy Services (a Pennsylvania corporation) and unnamed John/Jane Does after removal to federal court under diversity jurisdiction.
- Plaintiff alleges that in January 2021 he submitted a label to refill a Trelegy Ellipta inhaler but the pharmacy delayed/refused refill, causing respiratory distress, headaches, and emotional injury.
- Claims: state-law torts (gross negligence, negligence per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress), requests for declaratory relief under Ky. Rev. Stat. § 418, and alleged violations of Kentucky penal statutes.
- Defendant moved for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; the court applied the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard while giving pro se complaints liberal construction.
- The court allowed the state-law negligence and IIED claims to proceed against Defendants but dismissed the Kentucky penal-code claims and Plaintiff’s declaratory-judgment requests for failure to state a claim.
- The court noted Defendants’ statute-of-limitations argument applies to earlier (2019) allegations but did not bar the 2021 tort allegations that the court allowed to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of tort claims (negligence, IIED) | Harrison says delay/refusal to refill inhaler caused physical and emotional harm. | Diamond contends claims are deficient or time-barred for some events. | Court allowed negligence and IIED claims based on 2021 allegations to proceed. |
| Claims under Kentucky penal statutes | Harrison asks court to treat defendant conduct as violations of KRS criminal provisions. | Defendants note criminal enforcement is for prosecutors, not private plaintiffs. | Court dismissed penal-code claims — private party cannot seek federal criminal prosecution. |
| Declaratory relief under Ky. Rev. Stat. § 418 | Harrison seeks declarations relating to various KY statutes and DOC policies. | Defendants argue no justiciable connection to the defendants or controversy. | Court dismissed declaratory-judgment requests for failure to connect requests to the defendants and thus failure to state a justiciable claim. |
| Statute of limitations defense to tort claims | Harrison alleges harms including some from 2019 and 2021. | Diamond argues one-year limitations bar (Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.140(1)(a)) for earlier events. | Court did not dismiss the 2021 tort claims; noted the limitations argument applies to 2019 allegations not recited in the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must allege factual content supporting plausible claim)
- McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997) (§ 1915A screening authority explained)
- Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478 (6th Cir. 2009) (view pro se complaint in plaintiff’s favor; accept well-pleaded facts)
- Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274 (4th Cir. 1985) (court should not act as advocate for pro se litigant)
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978) (prosecutorial discretion over criminal charges)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)