Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Diana Cash's claims against Gilead Sciences, Inc. concern side effects she alleges she suffered from taking Atripla, one of Gilead's medications. The claims began in a multi-plaintiff complaint in Mosely v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., brought through counsel. Counsel moved to withdraw in March 2021 under California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(1), and the motion was granted in April 2021, after which Cash represented herself. In December 2021 the court granted Gilead's motion to dismiss her claims without prejudice because she had not submitted a Plaintiff Fact Sheet required by the court's orders.
Cash then filed two self-represented complaints. One, filed in New York state court, listed dollar amounts for personal injuries, failure to provide proper services, return of security and unpaid wages, with no supporting facts; it was removed to the Eastern District of New York and transferred here. The other, filed in the Eastern District of New York in December 2022, described side effects from Atripla and was also transferred. The court consolidated both with Holley v. Gilead Sciences Inc., No. 18-cv-6972, in May 2023. On May 22, 2026, it granted Gilead's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to both complaints, with leave to amend, and directed the clerk to close the state-court-origin case because Cash did not need two open cases on the same claims. On June 2, 2026, Cash filed a document labeled a declaration, which the court construed as her amended complaint. Gilead then moved to dismiss with prejudice.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Jon S. Tigar granted the motion and dismissed Cash's claims with prejudice and without leave to amend. Applying the Rule 8 and plausibility standards of Twombly and Iqbal, the court found that the amended complaint and her opposition did not fix the problems identified earlier. Cash alleged that Gilead intentionally delayed releasing a safer TAF-based alternative to maximize profits from its TDF drug, exposing her to bone density damage, pain and other harm. Those are her allegations, which the court accepted as true for purposes of the motion, not findings. She still did not say what claims she was bringing or on what legal theory Gilead should be held liable. The court described her submissions as an unadorned accusation that the defendant unlawfully harmed her, and said that suffering undesirable outcomes does not state a claim.
The court also rejected Cash's request for dismissal, which rested on a mistaken belief that Gilead had to meet threshold pleading standards; those requirements apply to the plaintiff's complaint. On leave to amend, the court noted that her claims had been dismissed once without prejudice, that she then filed two self-represented complaints that were found deficient, and that she had twice opposed Gilead's motions to resolve the case on the pleadings. Nothing she filed suggested she could state a plausible claim, so, citing Salameh v. Tarsadia Hotel, the court found good cause to deny further amendment. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close No. 22-cv-8970, and Gilead's motion to suspend case-specific deadlines as to Cash was denied as moot.
Key Takeaways
- Even a self-represented plaintiff must identify the claims and the legal theory on which a defendant is said to be liable, and a description of injuries alone is not enough.
- An allegation that a drugmaker delayed a safer alternative to protect profits did not substitute for a pleaded cause of action, and the court treated it only as an allegation accepted as true for the motion.
- The burden to meet Rule 8 pleading standards rests on the plaintiff, so a plaintiff cannot obtain dismissal by arguing that the defendant failed to state a claim.
- A court's discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad after a plaintiff has already been given a chance to amend and the new filing leaves the same gaps.
- The order resolves only Cash's claims, directing judgment and closure of her individual case, and it does not address other plaintiffs in the consolidated Holley litigation.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order, so it carries no binding precedential weight. It shows how a court managing a large consolidated pharmaceutical docket handled a self-represented plaintiff who received repeated opportunities to plead. The court explained the defects, allowed an amendment, and construed an informal filing as an amended complaint before ending the case.
Its practical lesson is that detailed medical history and a profit-motive narrative do not take the place of a stated legal theory such as one based on warnings or design. The order does not decide whether Cash's underlying allegations about Atripla have merit, and it does not affect other plaintiffs. Because the dismissal is with prejudice and judgment is to be entered, Cash's remaining path would be an appeal.