Hadley v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals PLC et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, granting 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Leonard Hadley, and 3 MOTION for Service of Process at Government Expense filed by Leonard Hadley. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 6/8/2018. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LEONARD HADLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-cv-1068-JPG-DGW

ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS PLC,
ASTRAZENECA PLC, U.S. and GOVERNMENT
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Leonard Hadley’s motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) and motion for service of process at government expense (Doc. 3). A
federal court may permit an indigent party to proceed without pre-payment of fees. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1). Nevertheless, a court can deny a qualified plaintiff leave to file in forma pauperis or can
dismiss a case if the action is clearly frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). The test for determining if an action is frivolous or without merit is whether
the plaintiff can make a rational argument on the law or facts in support of the claim. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Corgain v. Miller, 708 F.2d 1241, 1247 (7th Cir. 1983). An
action fails to state a claim if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). When assessing a petition to
proceed in forma pauperis, a district court should inquire into the merits of the petitioner’s claims, and
if the court finds them to be frivolous, it should deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Lucien v.
Roegner, 682 F.2d 625, 626 (7th Cir. 1982).
The Court is satisfied from Hadley’s affidavit that he is indigent. The Court further finds that
the action is not clearly frivolous or malicious or that it fails to state a claim. Accordingly, the Court
GRANTS the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2).

The Court further GRANTS the motion for service of process at government expense (Doc. 3).
The plaintiff having been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must order service of
process by a United States Marshal or Deputy Marshal or other specially appointed person. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(c)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
If the plaintiff wishes the United States Marshals Service to serve process in this case, the
Court DIRECTS the plaintiff to provide to the United States Marshals Service the summons issued in
this case, the appropriately completed USM-285 forms and sufficient copies of the complaint for
service.
The Court further DIRECTS the United States Marshal, upon receipt of the aforementioned
documents from the plaintiff for service on defendants AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals PLC and
AstraZeneca PLC, U.S. and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), to serve a copy of
summons, complaint and this order upon the defendants in any manner consistent with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4, as directed by the plaintiff.
The Court further DIRECTS the United States Marshal, upon receipt of the aforementioned
documents from the plaintiff for service on defendant Government Food and Drug Administration and
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), to serve a copy of the summons, complaint and
this order upon the defendant Government Food and Drug Administration, the United States Attorney
for the Southern District of Illinois and the Attorney General of the United States, Washington, D.C.,
in the manner specified by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)(1) & (2), as directed by the plaintiff.
Costs of service shall be borne by the United States.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 8, 2018
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2