United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
R. STEVEN WHALEN, Magistrate Judge.
On April 30, 2014, Plaintiff Robert Edward Lee filed a pro se civil complaint against Dr. Sai Li, a psychiatrist at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry. On August 1, 2014, he amended his complaint to add Eli Lilly Corporate Center ("Eli Lilly") as a Defendant [Doc. #5]. The case has been referred for all pretrial proceedings, including filing Reports and Recommendations as to dispositive matters, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Having reviewed the amended complaint, I recommend that the Court now dismiss it sua sponte as to Defendant Eli Lilly Corporate Center, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted.
In his original complaint, Mr. Lee alleged that while he was a patient at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry ("CFP"), Dr. Sai Li, a psychiatrist, forced him to take medication that caused impotence, specifically Zyprexa. According to a psychiatric report appended to the complaint, Mr. Lee was referred to the CFP after being adjudicated incompetent to stand trial on one count of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder and one count of felonious assault. The report confirms that he was prescribed Zyprexa.
Appended to the complaint is a letter to Mr. Lee, dated November 19, 2013, from Nurse Practitioner Jacqueline M. Stoll of Detroit Central City Community Health, Inc. ("DCC"), stating that Mr. Lee received Zyprexa from January 17, 2013 until February 14, 2013, when he "reported difficulties with erectile dysfunction (ED')." Stoll wrote that the Food and Drug Administration reported ED as a "known possible side effect" of Zyprexa. On March 14, 2013, DCC prescribed Risperdal, another psychotropic medication.
The claim against Eli Lilly, as set forth in Mr. Lee's amended complaint [Doc. #5], is sketchy. He states that Eli Lilly is harassing and annoying him. He recounts discussions with Eli Lilly customer service workers regarding his apparently unsuccessful attempt to get a second free voucher for Cialis. He claims to be afflicted with "mental distress or agitation." In his prayer for relief, he asks for treble damages based on an antitrust violation.
II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Plaintiff has been allowed to proceed without prepayment of fees. See 28 § U.S.C. 1915(a); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir.1997). However, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) states:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that:
(B) the action or appeal:
(I) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). "A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact if it... is based on legal theories that are indisputably meritless." Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866 (6th Cir. 2000)(citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28). A complaint fails to state a claim "if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." ...