Opinion
Civil Action 3:22-cv-594-BJB
07-24-2023
JARON SHAWN LA'V TEAGUE PLAINTIFF v. BAYER-BAYER et al. DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BENJAMIN BEATON, DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff JaRon Shawn La'V Teague filed a pro se, in forma pauperis complaint (DN 1). This matter is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses the action in part and will issue a separate order to govern the claim that survives.
I. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
Plaintiff, a resident of Kentucky, sues “Bayer-Bayer” (hereinafter, “Bayer”) alleging that its product Roundup “caus[ed] my multiple myeloma cancer.” DN 1, p. 4. The Complaint indicates that Teague brings this suit under federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction, “which ever applies.” Id. He states that Bayer is incorporated under the laws of and has its principal place of business in New Jersey and that the amount in controversy is $125 million. Id. at 5.
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff received a diagnosis of multiple myeloma cancer in or around February 2022. Id. at 6. He states that “he belongs to the same class of individuals [who] got their cancer from roundup product and received Monetary Relief . . . guaranteed pursuant to and for all purposes of Our Great United States Constitutional [First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth] Amendments.” Id. He explains that between 1984 and 1989, he was employed as a groundskeeper for schools and other buildings operated by the Jefferson County Board of Education. Id. He further states that he was later transferred to janitorial services which also required him to use Roundup. Id. In particular, he alleges that Defendants inflicted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and “have civilly confessed their product was defective.” Id. at 7. He attaches numerous documents to his Complaint, including medical records related to his cancer diagnosis and treatment. See DN 1-2-DN 1-14.
Plaintiff indicates that he also wishes to sue John and Jane Does at Bayer-Bayer, DN 1 at 4, and he filled out summons forms for John and Jane Does at the Bayer-Bayer corporate office in Whippany, NJ. DN 17, pp. 1, 5.
As relief, he requests compensatory and punitive damages. DN 1, p. 5.
II. ANALYSIS
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, this Court must review the instant action. See § 1915(e)(2); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d at 608-09. Upon review, this Court must dismiss a case at any time if the Court determines that the action is “frivolous or 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. § 1915(e)(2)(B). While a reviewing court must liberally construe pro se pleadings, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982), to avoid dismissal, a complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Plaintiff refers to the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments in his Complaint. See DN 1, p. 6. But “‘[t]he Supreme Court has never recognized a cause of action arising directly under the Constitution in a case where § 1983 was available as a remedy,' and ‘it is unnecessary and needlessly redundant to imply a cause of action arising directly under the Constitution where Congress has already provided a statutory remedy of equal effectiveness through which the plaintiff could have vindicated h[is] constitutional rights.'” Smith v. Kentucky, 36 F.4th 671, 674-75 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 143 S.Ct. 213 (2022), (quoting Thomas v. Shipka, 818 F.2d 496, 500 (6th Cir. 1987) (other citations omitted)).
Section 1983 creates a cause of action against any person who, under color of state law, causes the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. A claim under § 1983 must therefore allege (1) the deprivation of federal statutory or constitutional rights by (2) a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Flint v. Ky. Dep't of Corr., 270 F.3d 340, 351 (6th Cir. 2001).
As explained by another district court within the Sixth Circuit:
The Sixth Circuit recognizes four tests to determine whether private conduct is attributable to the state: “(1) the public function test; (2) the state compulsion test; (3) the symbiotic relationship or nexus test; and (4) the entwinement test.” Marie v. Am. Red Cross, 771 F.3d 344, 362 (6th Cir. 2014). The public function test applies when a private business performs state operations, such as running an election. Ellison v. Garbarino, 48 F.3d 192, 195 (6th Cir. 1995). The state compulsion test looks for whether “the state significantly encouraged or somehow coerced the private party . . . to take a particular action.” Id. The nexus test “requires a sufficiently close relationship (i.e. through state regulation or contract) between the state and the private actor” such that the private actor's actions can be attributed to the state. Id. Finally, the entwinement test asks whether the private entity is involved with governmental policy-setting or the government is entwined in a private entity's management. Marie, 771 F.3d at 363.In re Flint Water Cases, 453 F.Supp.3d 970, 983-84 (E.D. Mich. 2020).
Although the Complaint refers to Teague's employment in the public-school system, it offers no indication that Bayer (the only named Defendant) is a state actor under any of the four tests outlined above. For that reason, Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff's constitutional claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Plaintiff also indicates his desire to invoke diversity jurisdiction, refers to Bayer having “confessed [its] product was defective,” id. at 7, and expresses his desire to seek damages related to his diagnosis of cancer which he attributes to Bayer's “defective product,” id. at 14. The face of the Complaint thus indicates that this Court has subject matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendants exists and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. See § 1332(a)(1), (b). Reading Plaintiff's pro se Complaint liberally as the Court is required to do, see Boag, 454 U.S. at 365, the Court allows a claim for personal injury allegedly caused by the defectiveness of Roundup to continue against Defendants.
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims under the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The Court ORDERS that on preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) the Court will allow Plaintiff's claim that he was injured by Defendants' allegedly defective product to continue.
The Court will enter a separate Order Regarding Service.