Petty v. Merck and Co Inc, No. 07-31094 (5th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 07-31094 Summary Calendar July 28, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk JOAN M. PETTY Plaintiff-Appellant v. MERCK AND COMPANY, INC, a Foreign Corporation Defendant-Appellee Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:07-CV-3724 Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-Appellant Joan M. Petty ( Petty ) appeals the district court s dismissal, for lack of standing, of her action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Affording her pro se brief the benefit of liberal construction, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), Petty argues that she has standing to sue under RICO based on bodily injury allegedly caused by the drug Vioxx. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 07-31094 A RICO plaintiff must establish that [s]he has standing to sue. Price v. Pinnacle Brands, 138 F.3d 602, 606 (5th Cir. 1998). As there is no recovery under RICO for personal injuries, a plaintiff does not have standing to sue under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) based on such injuries. See id. at 607, n.20. Petty has not shown that the district court erred in dismissing her RICO action for lack of standing. Dismissal of Petty s RICO claim moots her emergency request for a temporary injunction, which was also not filed in accordance with Fifth Circuit Rule 27.3. Petty is advised that if the court determines future actions in connection with this emergency motion or any other action constitute frivolous, harassing, or contumacious conduct, she will be exposed to sanctions and penalties. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. All outstanding motions are DENIED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.