Thomas v. Greyhound Lines Inc
4:17-cv-00659
| N.D. Tex. | Feb 26, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Joe Thomas, proceeding pro se, alleges he was exposed to chemical/gas fumes on Greyhound bus trips on December 6, 2007 and September 12, 2015, causing illness and injuries.
- He seeks $10 million in damages for negligence based on Greyhound’s alleged failure to protect his health and a driver’s instruction to re-board a bus filled with smoke/fumes.
- Plaintiff filed multiple amended complaints; the Court accepted the Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 39) as the live pleading despite procedural irregularities.
- Greyhound moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and alternatively for a more definite statement; it also filed a supplemental motion after the Third Amended Complaint.
- The magistrate judge reviewed the pleadings, considered that pro se complaints are liberally construed, and found Plaintiff’s allegations sufficient to state a facially plausible negligence claim.
- Recommendation: deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss (and deny the alternative motion for a more definite statement); parties may object to the recommendation within 14 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6) | Thomas alleges exposure to fumes on two trips, resulting injuries and breach of duty by Greyhound; this supports a negligence claim | Greyhound argues Thomas fails to plead enough factual detail to make relief plausible (Twombly/Iqbal standard) | Court: Allegations are facially plausible and, given pro se status, sufficient to state a negligence claim; 12(b)(6) motion should be denied |
| Motion for a more definite statement (Rule 12(e)) | N/A (Plaintiff maintains facts as pleaded) | Greyhound alternatively requests a more definite statement to clarify claims | Court: Denies alternative request because the complaint gives sufficient notice to allow discovery to develop details |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaints must plead factual content allowing reasonable inference of liability)
- Yumilicious Franchise, L.L.C. v. Barrie, 819 F.3d 170 (pleading and 12(b)(6) discussion)
- Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158 (pro-plaintiff amendment policy on pleadings)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se complaints are construed liberally)
- Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (standards for objections to magistrate judge recommendations)