Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOE THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv393-RH/WCS

GREYHOUND LINES, INC.,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT

AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, ECF No. 4, and the objections, ECF No. 6. I have reviewed de

novo the issues raised by the objections. 

The plaintiff filed his complaint on a civil-rights complaint form. But he no

longer asserts a claim arising under federal law, if he ever did. The plaintiff

apparently now asserts claims based only on the Florida common law. See ECF

No. 6 at 1 & 22. As the report and recommendation correctly notes, federal

jurisdiction would exist over such a claim only if the parties were citizens of

different states (as they may be) and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The plaintiff made a presuit demaind for $1,000,000, but
Page 2 of 3

Case No: 4:10cv393-RH/WCS

the defendant offered $100, and the record gives little cause to believe the amount

in controversy in fact exceeds $75,000.

Still, the plaintiff has attached voluminous medical records. The plaintiff

should have an opportunity to amend his complaint to allege that the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000 and to allege facts supporting that conclusion. This

order affords an opportunity to amend. Any amended complaint must allege facts

sufficient to show federal jurisdiction—that is, it must allege facts showing that the

parties are citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy exceeds

$75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. The amended complaint must include the

case name and number, must be labeled an “amended complaint,” must set out the

plaintiff’s allegations in full without reference to the earlier complaint, and must

set out its allegations in short, separate paragraphs. 

One further point should be noted. The plaintiff apparently resides in

California. His claim apparently arises primarily, if not wholly, from events that

occurred when a bus broke down not in this district—the Northern District of

Florida—but in the Middle District of Florida. The highway on which the plaintiff

says the bus broke down—Interstate Highway 4—is wholly within the Middle

District of Florida; it does not pass through the Northern District. The plaintiff

apparently did pass through the Northern District en route from the point where the

bus broke down to California, and he might even have been on that same bus, after
Page 3 of 3

Case No: 4:10cv393-RH/WCS

the initial breakdown, at some point within the Northern District. He thus might

have suffered a tort and resulting damages in this district. Even so, it seems

unlikely that this case ultimately will go forward in the Northern District. See 28

U.S.C. § 1404(a) (allowing a court to transfer a case to a district where it might

have been brought for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the

interest of justice). 

The plaintiff may wish to consider foregoing the opportunity to file an

amended complaint in this case. He may wish, instead, to file his claim in a state

court that plainly has jurisdiction. If the plaintiff chooses not to file an amended

complaint, the case will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction,

thus allowing the plaintiff to file a new lawsuit in state court.

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as the court’s

opinion in part. The complaint is dismissed. The plaintiff may file an amended

complaint by November 4, 2010.

SO ORDERED on October 7, 2010.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge