Sharp v. Granite Construction, 3:22-cv-00098

Plaintiff Mark T. Sharp filed a pro se civil action alleging he was struck by an Amtrak train on February 20, 2020 while in a concrete truck during employment with 3D Concrete.
Sharp’s initial filing also asked for more time to pay fees and file a complaint because he is detained and could not retain counsel.
The Magistrate Judge treated the initial filing as a motion (not a complaint), denied it, gave Sharp 30 days to file a complaint and either pay the $402 fee or apply for IFP, and later recommended dismissal without prejudice when no new complaint was filed.
Sharp paid the filing fee but did not file a separate complaint; the District Court construed the initial filing as a pro se complaint and conducted screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
The District Court held the minimal allegation that Amtrak hit Sharp alleges a cognizable tort claim and that federal courts have jurisdiction over Amtrak; the Court rejected the R&R and granted Sharp 90 days to file a First Amended Complaint curing specified deficiencies.
The Court instructed Sharp to detail what happened, what each defendant (Amtrak, Granite Construction, Union Pacific) did or failed to do, specify damages/relief sought, use numbered claims/paragraphs, and provided an IFP form and sample complaint; failure to amend may result in dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sharp’s initial filing should be treated as a complaint	The initial filing alleges the train strike and requests relief/time; should count as a complaint	Magistrate construed it as a motion and said no complaint was filed	Court held the initial filing can be construed as a complaint and rejected the R&R recommending dismissal
Whether the pleadings survive screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A	Sharp alleges he was hit by an Amtrak train on Feb. 20, 2020, asserting a tort claim against a government entity	Implicit: complaint is minimal/deficient and might fail to state a claim	Court found the minimal factual allegation sufficient to state a cognizable claim at screening stage
Whether Amtrak is amenable to suit and federal courts have jurisdiction	Sharp sues Amtrak for tort damages	Potential defense: governmental immunity or lack of federal jurisdiction over Amtrak	Court held Amtrak is a government entity amenable to suit and federal jurisdiction exists (citing controlling precedent)
Adequacy of claims against Granite Construction and Union Pacific and joinder	Sharp named these defendants but provided no factual allegations tying them to the injury	Defendants lack specific allegations; joinder/claim-pleading rules require transaction/occurrence and factual detail	Court held claims are deficient, granted leave to amend and required Sharp to allege specific acts, damages, and number separate claims; failure to amend may lead to dismissal

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (pro se pleadings must be liberally construed and given benefit of doubt)
Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2014) (pro se complaints may be dismissed only if no set of facts could entitle plaintiff to relief)
Lebron v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374 (1995) (Amtrak is a governmental entity and not immune from damages suits)
Hollus v. Amtrak Northeast Corridor, 937 F. Supp. 1110 (D.N.J. 1996) (federal courts have jurisdiction over Amtrak under 28 U.S.C. § 1349)
Sentner v. Amtrak, 540 F. Supp. 557 (D.N.J. 1982) (discussing Amtrak’s status and amenability to suit)