Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOE THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv393-RH/WCS

GREYHOUND LINES, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se in this case, filed a motion seeking leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, doc. 2, and a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Doc. 1. As good cause has been demonstrated, doc. 2, the in forma pauperis motion is

granted and the Clerk of Court shall file the complaint without requiring payment of the

filing fee. 

The complaint has been reviewed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The only

Defendant named in this action is Greyhound Lines, Inc., and Plaintiff alleges that

venue is appropriate here because the incident at issue took plaintiff on December 6,

2007, on "I-4 of Orlando Florida Perry Florida the State of Florida." Doc. 1, p. 3. 

Plaintiff complains while traveling from Fort Lauderdale, Florida to Los Angeles,
Page 2 of 4

California, the Greyhound Bus in which he was riding "encountered severe mechanical

problems within the vicinity of Orlando Florida and Perry Florida on Interstate I-4

Northern District of Florida the State of Florida on December 6, 2007." Id. Plaintiff

reports the bus had to pull off the road, and smoke and fumes began filling the inside of

the bus. Id. Plaintiff claims he suffered smoke inhalation. Id., at 3-4. Plaintiff and

some other passengers were allowed off the bus around Perry, Florida, while the engine

was examined. Id., at 4. Plaintiff and the passengers were directed to re-board the bus

so it could arrive at a rest area. Id. When it finally arrived, paramedics were called and

treated Plaintiff for high blood pressure. Id. Plaintiff was directed to re-board the

"dangerous and hazardous smoke and fume infested vehicle and proceed to"

Tallahassee. Id. Upon arrival, "approximately 15 or 30 miles" away from the rest area,

the passengers were sent to a replacement bus to continue their trip. Id. 

Plaintiff contends his civil rights were violated and Greyhound did not

appropriately address the situation. Id., at 5. Plaintiff contends Greyhound breached its

duty to him, and was negligent. Id. 

Section 1983 imposes liability on one who, "acting under color of state law,

deprives a person of 'any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution

and laws.'" Doe 1-13 By and Through Doe, Sr. 1-13 v. Chiles, 136 F.3d 709, 713 (11th

Cir. 1998). Thus, to obtain relief, a plaintiff must show that he was deprived of a federal

right by a person acting under color of state law. Patrick v. Floyd Medical Center, 201

F.3d 1313, 1315 (11th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff has not shown either the violation of a

constitutional right, or that any action was taken by a state official. Greyhound Lines,

Case No. 4:10cv393-RH/WCS
Page 3 of 4

Inc., is a private business and not the State. As filed, the complaint fails to state a claim

and should be dismissed.

I have also considered whether Plaintiff should be provided an opportunity to

amend his complaint to bring a claim under the Court's diversity jurisdiction. In light of

Plaintiff's allegations, however, there are not sufficient credible allegations of substantial

injury that could meet the $75,000 threshold of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Thus, there is no

need to direct amendment, and the case should be dismissed.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff's in forma pauperis motion, doc. 2, should be GRANTED.

2. The Clerk shall file the complaint without requiring payment of the filing fee.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's

complaint, doc. 1, be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on September 17, 2010.

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No. 4:10cv393-RH/WCS
Page 4 of 4

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days

after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the

scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:10cv393-RH/WCS