WILLIAMS v. JANSSEN PHARMAURICAL
ORDER. Consistent with the Court's Order dated 3/30/21 (Doc. 4 ), the case now is dismissed with prejudice, and a Rule 58 judgment order will issue. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 4/26/21. (cyk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANNETTE ELIZABETH WILLIAMS,
JANSSEN PHARMAURICAL, et al.,
Civil Action No. 21-107
Judge Cathy Bissoon
On March 30, 2021, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 3) without prejudice
to the filing of an amended complaint by April 13, 2021. Doc. 4. On April 12, 2021, Plaintiff
moved for an extension of time to file an amended complaint, which the Court granted, giving
her an additional 10 days. Doc. 6. On April 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.
Although Plaintiff has timely filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 7), the amended
pleading does not comply with Federal Rule 8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (requiring “short and
plain statement[s]” showing that the pleader is entitled to relief) and 8(d)(1) (“Each allegation
must be simple, concise, and direct.”). Stated in the simplest possible terms, the Court does not
understand what Plaintiff is alleging, beyond a general understanding that the complaint relates
to a medication prescribed to her and a visit to St. Vincent Hospital.1 To the extent that the
The Amended Complaint does not contain any meaningful factual averments. Plaintiff has
added one additional defendant and attached numerous exhibits which appear to be medical
records. When read together with her previously filed Complaint (Doc. 3), the Court assumes
Plaintiff’s allegations are related to an event at St. Vincent Hospital, but Plaintiff’s allegations
are far from clear.
Plaintiff has attempted to describe the circumstances surrounding this, the Court cannot
understand her allegations to a degree that it may determine a legal-framework to apply, let alone
to test the sufficiency of her allegations.
Moreover, Court is unable to discern the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Again,
Plaintiff does not cite or reference any relevant federal statute. Again, there is no apparent basis
for exercising federal question jurisdiction on the facts alleged. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546
U.S. 500, 513 n.10 (2006) (“A claim invoking federal-question jurisdiction . . . may be dismissed
for want of subject-matter jurisdiction if it is not colorable, i.e., if it is ‘immaterial and made
solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction’ or is ‘wholly insubstantial and frivolous.’”)
(quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682–83 (1946)). The Court previously explained to
Plaintiff these deficiencies, allowed her an opportunity for amendment and directed that she must
identify “a valid jurisdictional basis for proceeding,” and that she must “make last, best efforts in
these regards, because further opportunity for amendment will not be afforded.” Doc. 4 at 2.
There has been little (if any) improvement, and the Court has no reason to conclude that
additional amendment will remedy the situation.
For these reasons, and consistent with the Court’s Order dated March 30, 2021 (Doc. 4),
the case now is dismissed with prejudice, and a Rule 58 judgment order will issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 26, 2021
United States District Judge
cc (via First-Class U.S. Mail):
Annette Elizabeth Williams
36070 Oakmont Dr.
Union City, PA 16438
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?