Kendrick v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Kathleen Kendrick, No. CV-21-0132-TUC-BGM 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals, 13 Defendant.

14 On June 30, 2021, the Court issued its Order (Doc. 10) granting Plaintiff IFP status and screening her initial complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, and the Court instructed Plaintiff to familiarize herself with the court rules, as 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 initial complaint. See Order 6/30/2021 (Doc. 10). First, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 12) is in letter format in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules.1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10; LRCiv. 7.1. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 12) also includes attachments of medical records and other information without explanation. Plaintiff alleges that she became ill in late December 2019 and was 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 January 2020 she began to feel ill again. Id. Plaintiff indicates that she went to the 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] || 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 || 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 || (2009). Plaintiff acknowledges her illness first appeared in December 2019 prior to □□ taking any of the allegedly tainted metformin. Therefore, her illness began before || ingestion of the medication she alleges caused her illness. Furthermore, “[f]actual || 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 || (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-