Sharp v. Granite Construction

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedJune 7, 2022
Docket3:22-cv-00098
StatusUnknown

This text of Sharp v. Granite Construction (Sharp v. Granite Construction) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sharp v. Granite Construction, (D. Nev. 2022).

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4

5 * * *

6 MARK LH TUCKER SHARP, Case No. 3:22-cv-00098-ART-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s report recommending dismissal 13 of this action without prejudice for failure to file a complaint. (ECF No. 5.) Because 14 this Court construes Plaintiff Sharp’s initial filing (ECF No. 1) as a pro se 15 complaint stating a cognizable tort claim against a government entity and other 16 defendants, it rejects the report recommending dismissal and grants Sharp leave 17 to amend his Complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint within 90 days 18 could result in dismissal of this action. 19 Sharp filed a Complaint on February 18, 2022, by commencing this “civil 20 action” alleging that that he was hit by an Amtrak train while he was in a concrete 21 truck during his employment with 3D Concrete. In his initial filing, Sharp 22 requested additional time to pay fees and file his complaint because he currently 23 is detained pretrial and because the lawyer whom he tried to retain declined to 24 represent him. The Magistrate Judge construed Sharp’s initial pleading simply 25 as a motion, which it denied, and informed Sharp by letter that he had 30 days 26 to file a complaint and either pay the full $402 filing fee or apply to proceed in 27 forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 3.) Mr. Sharp paid the filing fee, which the 28 Magistrate Judge acknowledged, but did not file any new documents, so the 1 Magistrate Judge recommended that his case be dismissed without prejudice for 2 failure to file a complaint. This Court finds that Sharp’s initial pleading is a 3 complaint that survives screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 4 This Court must screen a civil complaint by a prisoner like Sharp who 5 “seeks redress from a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). A complaint 6 must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is 7 entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, 8 and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). “A party must state its claims or defenses in 9 numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of 10 circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). “[E]ach claim founded on a separate 11 transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count.” Id. 12 A §1915A screening order must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the 13 complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous, 14 malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) 15 seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 16 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Because Sharp is proceeding pro se, his pleadings must be 17 “construed liberally” and he must be afforded “the benefit of any doubt.” See 18 Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal citation omitted)); cf. 19 Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014) (stating pro se complaints 20 are construed liberally and “may only be dismissed if it appears beyond doubt 21 that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would 22 entitle him to relief”). 23 Sharp states a cognizable tort claim against Amtrak by alleging that he 24 was “hit by an Amtrak train” on “February 20, 2020.” (ECF No. 1.) This 25 statement, though minimal, alleges a tort claim against the National Railroad 26 Passenger Corporation known as “Amtrak.” This Court has jurisdiction over a 27 suit against Amtrak. See 28 U.S.C. § 1349 (providing federal court jurisdiction 28 over federally chartered corporation of which the United States owns more than 1 50 percent of the capital stock); Hollus v. Amtrak Northeast Corridor, 937 2 F.Supp. 1110, 1114 (D.N.J. 1996) (holding that Amtrak is subject to suit in 3 federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1349); Moore v. City of Merced, No. No. 19- 4 01183, 2019 WL 6467324, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2019)(noting that courts 5 routinely accept as well-established that the United States owns more than one 6 half of Amtrak's capital stock). Amtrak is a government entity that is not 7 immune from damages. See Lebron v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 8 374, 391 (1995) (holding that Amtrak is a government entity and not immune 9 from damages suits, citing Sentner v. Amtrak, 540 F.Supp. 557, 560 (D.N.J. 10 1982)). 11 Though his Complaint alleges a tort claim against Amtrak and thus 12 survives screening, Sharp will be given leave to amend his Complaint to address 13 its deficiencies. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 15, leave to 14 amend a pleading “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 15(a). With respect to Amtrak, an amended complaint should provide additional 16 detail regarding the February 20, 2020 incident, explaining what happened, what 17 Amtrak did or failed to do that resulted in harm to Sharp and what damages or 18 other relief he seeks. If Sharp seeks to add any claims against the Amtrak, he 19 should number each claim and write a short and plain statement of each claim 20 in a separate paragraph. Sharp must file an amended complaint within 90 days 21 of this Order and must provide additional information consistent with this Order. 22 Failure to amend the complaint may result in dismissal of this action. 23 Sharp also names Granite Construction and Union Pacific Railroad as 24 defendants but his Complaint is deficient because it fails to explain what these 25 defendants did or failed to do that caused him harm and what relief Sharp is 26 requesting. See FRCP 20(a)(2) (allowing a plaintiff to join multiple defendants to 27 a lawsuit where the right to relief arises out of the same “transaction, occurrence, 28 or series of transactions” and “any question of law or fact common to all 1 defendants will arise in the action.”) Those additional facts will be necessary to 2 determine if the Court has jurisdiction over these defendants and Sharp has 3 stated a cognizable claim against them. 4 To summarize, while Sharp’s Complaint survives screening, he must 5 amend his Complaint to cure its deficiencies and failure to do so may result in 6 dismissal of this action. An amended complaint must: 7 • State what happened and how Sharp was injured; 8 • State what each of the defendants did or failed to do that caused Sharp 9 harm; and 10 • State the relief Sharp seeks. 11 If more than one claim is asserted against any defendant, Sharp should number 12 each claim and write a short and plain statement of each claim in a separate 13 paragraph.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hebbe v. Pliler
627 F.3d 338 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Austin v. United States
513 U.S. 5 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Sentner v. Amtrak
540 F. Supp. 557 (D. New Jersey, 1982)
Scott Nordstrom v. Charles Ryan
762 F.3d 903 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sharp v. Granite Construction, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharp-v-granite-construction-nvd-2022.