Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
This October 14, 2026 order from the Northern District of California addresses the claims of Diana Cash, a self-represented plaintiff whose cases were consolidated with Holley v. Gilead Sciences. Cash alleges she suffered side effects from taking Atripla, a Gilead medication. Her claims began in a multi-plaintiff complaint filed through counsel in Mosely v. Gilead Sciences. In March 2021 counsel moved to withdraw, citing a California professional conduct rule that permits withdrawal when a client insists on presenting a claim not warranted under existing law. The court granted the motion in April 2021 and Cash proceeded on her own.
In November 2021 Gilead moved to dismiss Cash's claims without prejudice because she had not submitted a Plaintiff Fact Sheet, and the court granted that motion in December 2021. Cash then filed two self-represented complaints. The first, filed in New York state court and later removed and transferred here (Cash II), demanded $25,000 plus interest for unspecified personal injuries, failure to provide services, return of security, and unpaid wages. The second, filed in the Eastern District of New York and transferred in December 2022 (Cash I), alleged side effects from Atripla. The court consolidated both with Holley in May 2023.
On May 22, 2026, the court granted Gilead's motion for judgment on the pleadings on both complaints because neither articulated a theory of liability. It gave Cash leave to amend and directed the Clerk to close Cash II as duplicative. Cash then filed a document labeled a declaration on June 2, 2026, which the court construed as her amended complaint. Gilead moved to dismiss with prejudice.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the motion and dismissed Cash's claims with prejudice and without leave to amend. It found that neither the construed amended complaint nor her opposition cured the deficiencies identified in May. The amended filing added an allegation that Gilead intentionally delayed releasing a safer TAF-based alternative to protect profits from its TDF drug, exposing her to bone density damage, pain and suffering, and TDF side effects. But the court found she still did not say what claims she was bringing or on what legal theory Gilead should be held liable. Suffering undesirable outcomes does not state a claim, and the court again found only an unadorned accusation of harm under Iqbal.
The court also rejected Cash's apparent view that Gilead must satisfy threshold pleading standards and state a claim. Those requirements fall on the plaintiff's complaint, not on the defendant at this stage.
On leave to amend, the court found good cause to deny it. Cash had filed two self-represented complaints after the earlier dismissal, received leave to amend after judgment on the pleadings, and twice opposed Gilead's efforts to resolve the case on the pleadings. Nothing she filed suggested she could plead a plausible claim under Rule 8. Citing Salameh v. Tarsadia Hotel, the court noted its discretion is particularly broad where a plaintiff has previously amended. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close Cash I, No. 22-cv-8970, and Gilead's motion to suspend Cash-specific deadlines was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A complaint must identify a legal theory and supporting facts; listing side effects or injuries without explaining why the defendant is liable is an unadorned accusation that fails Rule 8 and Iqbal.
- The burden of stating a claim rests on the plaintiff, so arguing that the defendant failed to meet pleading standards does not satisfy it.
- Leave to amend may be denied where earlier opportunities, accompanied by an explanation of the deficiencies, did not cure the problem and nothing suggests a plausible claim is possible.
- The order disposes only of Cash's claims and directs judgment in her individual case, Cash I.
Why It Matters
The order shows that a court will dismiss with prejudice even a self-represented plaintiff when earlier orders explained the pleading deficiency and later filings did not fix it. The court gave her informal declaration the benefit of construing it as an amended complaint, yet it still stated no claim.
This is an unreported district court order applying settled Iqbal, Twombly and Salameh standards, so it carries no precedential weight beyond this case. The order does not address any further proceedings.