Kendrick v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Kathleen Kendrick, No. CV-21-0132-TUC-BGM

10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Lupin Pharmaceuticals, 13 Defendant. 14 On June 30, 2021, the Court issued its Order (Doc. 10) granting Plaintiff IFP 15 status and screening her initial complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave 16 to amend, and the Court instructed Plaintiff to familiarize herself with the court rules, as 17 well as directed her to information for self-represented litigants. Order 6/30/2021 (Doc. 18 10). On July 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 12). 19 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 12) suffers from the same defects as her 20 initial complaint. See Order 6/30/2021 (Doc. 10). First, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint 21 (Doc. 12) is in letter format in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this 22 Court’s Local Rules.1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10; LRCiv. 7.1. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Amended 23 Complaint (Doc. 12) also includes attachments of medical records and other information 24 without explanation. Plaintiff alleges that she became ill in late December 2019 and was 25 treated with antibiotics for an ear and sinus infection. Amended Compl. (Doc. 12) at 1. 26 Plaintiff further alleges that she felt fine for a short amount of time, but by the end of 27 January 2020 she began to feel ill again. Id. Plaintiff indicates that she went to the 28 1 Rules of Practice and Procedure of the U.S District Court for the District of Arizona. 1 || hospital in March 2020 where she was found to have an enlarged spleen and gallbladder. 2|| Id. “Once again, [she] was treated but did not recover fully[.]” /d. Plaintiff was subsequently diagnosed with Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia (“CMML”). □□□ 4|| Plaintiff alleges that she was given “tainted metformin medications from Lupin || Pharmaceuticals . . . from January 2020 through March 2020[.]” Amended Compl. (Doc. 6|| 12) at 1. Plaintiff states her belief that “the documents are proof that nothing occurred 7\| until during a 90-day prescription of one of the bad batches of metformin that [she] 8 || received[.]” Jd. at 2. Plaintiff claims that “i]t is clear that the mutation [of her CMML] || was caused by [her] exposure to the high NDMA in the metformin and [her] system 10 || reacted in a devastating way.” Id. 11 Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Doc. 12) does not contain any facts beyond mere 12|| allegations that she suffered an injury. Such “the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me” 13} accusations are insufficient to state a claim under Rule 8, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 15 || (2009). Plaintiff acknowledges her illness first appeared in December 2019 prior to □□ taking any of the allegedly tainted metformin. Therefore, her illness began before 17 || ingestion of the medication she alleges caused her illness. Furthermore, “[f]actual 18 || allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level[.]” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) (citations omitted). Plaintiff cannot do so here. As such, it would be futile to allow further amendment of her complaint. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint 23 || (Doc. 12) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 24 The Clerk of Court is directed to close its file in this matter. 25 Dated this 4th day of October, 2021. 26 fl p 28 Honorable Raner ©. Collins senior United States District Judge -2-