A group of 450 pro se prisoners sued tobacco manufacturers and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons for excessive exposure to environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS") while incarcerated. The Defendants made a F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim, which was granted. While the Court acknowledged that actions against the State for violations of 8th amendment rights based upon ETS exposure were "relatively familiar and well-settled," citing numerous precedents, the Court noted that this case was targeting the manufacturers of tobacco products as opposed to the prison officials or prison policies. Instead, the Plaintiffs alleged that the tobacco industry conspired with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons "to sell as many cigarettes as possible to the federal prisoner population." Calling the allegations "too conclusory and insubstantial to be sustainable," the Court dismissed the case. Furthermore, the Court noted that it had no jurisdiction over the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and thus dismissed the case against her. However, the court did note that "Plaintiffs have presented a compelling portrait that federal prisons are permeated with Tobacco Smoke" and noted that Plaintiffs could re-file a new complaint that met their jurisdiction and pleading requirements.
Nwanze et al. v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. Et. al., 100 F. Supp. 2d 215, (S.D.N.Y. 2000)
United States
Jun 7, 2000
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
A violation of the protection against cruel and unusual punishment. For example, prisoners may claim that exposure to secondhand smoke violates this right.
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"Plaintiffs have presented a compelling portrait that the federal prisons in which they are confined are
permeated with tobacco smoke. This Court, however, is one of limited jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have
disclaimed diversity jurisdiction and have not alleged a viable federal cause of action. The Second
Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Because the Complaint's defects relate to the basic
facts at issue rather than technical flaws that could be cured by re-pleading, leave to amend the Complaint
is denied."
"The Complaint alleges, with great specificity, long-standing, concerted efforts within the tobacco industry to conceal the medical harms associated with tobacco smoke from the public and to enhance the addictiveness of tobacco products. With respect to Director Hawk's involvement, however, the conspiracy allegations are exceedingly scant. The Complaint charges a conspiracy to violate the Eighth Amendment, but makes no specific factual allegations whatsoever as to any agreement or joint effort that might have constituted the conspiracy. We are told that the BOP distributes tobacco products to inmates free of charge. We are also told that the BOP profits from the sale of tobacco products to inmates, because of the monopolistic control over such sales that it enjoys. The Complaint alleges that the BOP purchased tobacco products with inmate funds and that it distributes and sells those products in deliberate disregard of known health risks. But nowhere does the Complaint identify an agreement or concerted action between Director Hawk and the private party defendants to expose nonsmoking inmates to unacceptable levels of ETS. The only agreements alleged to have been made between the BOP and the private party defendants are contracts for the sale of tobacco products and an agreement that the private party defendants would bank-roll any legal proceedings involving the availability of tobacco products in federal prisons. Even construing all factual allegations in the Plaintiffs' favor, such agreements would not amount to a conspiracy to violate the Eighth Amendment. The Complaint's conspiracy allegations are vague, general, and conclusory and must be dismissed."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
A group of 450 pro se prisoners sued tobacco manufacturers and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons for excessive exposure to environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS") while incarcerated. The Defendants made a F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim, which was granted. While the Court acknowledged that actions against the State for violations of 8th amendment rights based upon ETS exposure were "relatively familiar and well-settled," citing numerous precedents, the Court noted that this case was targeting the manufacturers of tobacco products as opposed to the prison officials or prison policies. Instead, the Plaintiffs alleged that the tobacco industry conspired with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons "to sell as many cigarettes as possible to the federal prisoner population." Calling the allegations "too conclusory and insubstantial to be sustainable," the Court dismissed the case. Furthermore, the Court noted that it had no jurisdiction over the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and thus dismissed the case against her. However, the court did note that "Plaintiffs have presented a compelling portrait that federal prisons are permeated with Tobacco Smoke" and noted that Plaintiffs could re-file a new complaint that met their jurisdiction and pleading requirements.