Miles v. Proctor and Gamble Manufacturing Company et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 11/18/2020. (nmg)
Case 1:19-cv-00871-MN Document 30 Filed 11/18/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 141
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
PROCTOR AND GAMBLE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY and ASTRA
ZENECA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY,
C.A. No. 19-871 (MN)
Kelvin Miles, FMC Rochester, Rochester, Minnesota, Pro Se Plaintiff.
November 18, 2020
Case 1:19-cv-00871-MN Document 30 Filed 11/18/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 142
NOREIKA, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:
Plaintiff Kelvin Miles (“Plaintiff”), an inmate at FMC Rochester in Rochester, Minnesota,
commenced this action on May 9, 2019. (D.I. 1). Plaintiff appears pro se and has been granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 9). The original complaint was dismissed and Plaintiff
was given leave to file an amended complaint. (D.I. 11, 12, 25). This Court proceeds to review
and screen the Amended Complaint, filed April 25, 2020, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
and § 1915A(a). Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for counsel and motion for a show
cause order. (D.I. 24).
This case concerns what Plaintiff describes as the forced administration of Haldol Deconate
intramuscular injections every two weeks without his consent. (D.I. 1 at 3; D.I. 25 at 2). This
Court dismissed Plaintiff’s original complaint upon screening and gave Plaintiff leave to amend
on or before November 24, 2019. (D.I. 11, 12). The original Complaint was dismissed as legally
frivolous and for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted. Specifically, this Court
found that Plaintiff relied upon unknown statutes to support his claims and that he attempted to
raise constitutional claims but did not name state or federal actors as defendants as required for
claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau
of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 389 (1971). (D.I. 11 at 5, 6).
Plaintiff was warned that the case would be closed should he fail to timely amend. (Id.).
On December 10, 2019, the case was closed after Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint.
(D.I. 19). Plaintiff filed a motion for new trial and show cause order, which the Court construed
as a motion for reconsideration. (D.I. 21). On April 8, 3030, the motion for reconsideration was
Case 1:19-cv-00871-MN Document 30 Filed 11/18/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 143
granted given Plaintiff’s pro se status, but noting that there was no basis to change the order
dismissing the case. (D.I. 23 at 3). Plaintiff was given until June 8, 2020, to file an amended
complaint. (D.I. 23 at 6).
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 28, 2020 and, at the same time, filed a
combined request for counsel and motion for a show cause order. (D.I. 24, 25). Plaintiff also
submitted medical records on April 28, 2020 and June 15, 2020 in support of his Amended
Complaint. (D.I. 26, 27).
Except for the order of the text, the Amended Complaint is identical to the dismissed
original complaint. Pages 1 and 4 of the Complaint and Amended Complaint are identical; page
3 of the original Complaint is identical to page 2 of the Amended Complaint; and page 3 of the
original Complaint and page 2 of the Amended Complaint are identical. (Compare D.I. 1 to
D.I. 25). The only difference between the original Complaint and Amended Complaint is that
concurrent with the filing of the Amended Complaint Plaintiff submitted medical records to
support his claims. This Court will not reiterate the allegations as they were fully discussed in the
Court’s October 24, 2019 Memorandum. (D.I. 11 at 2-3).
With the new filings, Plaintiff did not cure his pleading defects. Indeed, the submitted
medical records discount his claims. Plaintiff alleges that he “never signed a consent form to his
knowledge” for the administration of Haldol. (D.I. 25 at 2). The medical records, however, state
that a consent is on file for Haldol administered both orally and intra-muscularly. (D.I. 26 at 4;
D.I. 27-1 at 1).
As is well-established, a federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the
screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b) if “the action is frivolous or
Case 1:19-cv-00871-MN Document 30 Filed 11/18/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 144
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013);
see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (actions in which
prisoner seeks redress from a governmental defendant); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (prisoner actions
brought with respect to prison conditions). Plaintiff failed to cure his pleading defects despite the
fact that he was given an opportunity to do so. Even though Plaintiff proceeds pro se, and his
Amended Complaint is liberally construed, it is deficient for the reasons discussed in this Court’s
analysis when it dismissed the original complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(citations omitted). In light of the fact that Plaintiff made no effort to correct the pleading
deficiencies, this Court finds further amendment futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp.,
293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).
For the above reasons, this Court will: (1) deny as moot Plaintiff’s request for counsel and
motion for a show cause order (D.I. 24); and (2) dismiss the Amended Complaint as legally
frivolous pursuant 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1). This Court finds amendment
An appropriate Order will be entered.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?