Brenda Moore v. Greyhound Bus Lines, Inc.
711 F. App'x 825
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Brenda Moore, pro se, sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) after being denied assistance boarding a bus.
- Moore alleges she uses a cane and a support device for nerve damage and notified defendants she needed boarding assistance when purchasing a ticket.
- She claims a bus driver and supervisor (Greyhound) refused to assist and denied her boarding because she could not climb stairs unassisted.
- District court dismissed her complaint; Moore appealed the dismissal.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo and evaluated whether Moore stated plausible ADA claims against the defendants.
- The panel affirmed dismissal of the ADA claim against U.S. Security Associates but reversed and remanded as to Greyhound because Moore pleaded sufficient facts but failed to include a prayer for relief and was not given leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore pleaded an ADA Title III claim against Greyhound | Moore alleged disability, requested assistance, was refused boarding due to inability to climb stairs | Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim | Plausible ADA claim against Greyhound; claim survives 12(b)(6) but complaint lacked a prayer for relief — remanded with leave to amend |
| Whether Moore pleaded an ADA claim against U.S. Security Associates | Same factual allegations implicating U.S. Security | U.S. Security argued insufficient factual allegations linking refusal to disability | Dismissal affirmed; allegations insufficient to show denial of public accommodations because of disability |
| Whether district court should have allowed amendment for Rule 8(a)(3) defect | Moore’s opposition included a prayer for relief, showing ability to amend | Defendants relied on procedural dismissal | Reversed: district court must notify Moore of omission and permit amendment as to Greyhound claim |
| Whether remaining federal and state claims proceed on appeal | Moore raised other claims in district court | Defendants argued waiver on appeal | Other claims deemed abandoned for failure to argue them in opening brief |
Key Cases Cited
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (pro se pleadings must be liberally construed but still must state a plausible claim)
- Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007) (elements of a Title III discrimination claim)
- Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal without leave to amend proper when amendment would be futile)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Weaving v. City of Hillsboro, 763 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2014) (definition of disability construed broadly)
- Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245 (9th Cir. 1995) (pro se litigants entitled to notice of deficiencies and opportunity to amend)
- Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (issues not argued in opening brief are forfeited)
- Acosta–Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues unsupported by argument in pro se opening brief are waived)