Nwanze v. Philip Morris

Plaintiffs, non-smoking inmates located at a correctional institution in Pennsylvania, filed suit against several major tobacco companies stemming from their involuntary exposure to environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS") while incarcerated, under the theory that the ETS was cause by products marketed and manufactured by Defendants.  In this order, the Court responded to several procedural motions without addressing any factual allegations or any of the merits of the suit.  The Court noted that the Plaintiffs, all pro-se litigants, failed to make essential assertions regarding venue and also noted that it is forbidden for the Court to certify a class of pro-se litigants, the Court dismissed the case as moot and denied class certification without prejudice.

However, the Court also noted that ETS litigation requires many fact-specific determinations, and thus granted the Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint, and "[held] in abeyance the Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Council pending the resolution of the venue question," suggesting that it seemed likely that the proper venue would be in the Pennsylvania district where the facility was located.


Nwanze et al. v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. et al., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21955 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)

  • United States
  • May 10, 1999
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York


Plaintiff Austen Nwanze

Defendant Philip Morris Companies, Inc.

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product