The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
WAYNE GORDON CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 23-1840
REGIONAL TRANSIT SECTION “B”(1)
AUTHORITY ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are pro se plaintiff Wayne Gordon’s petition for tort damages (Rec. Doc.
1), Magistrate Judge van Meerveld’s Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of
Mr. Gordon’s suit (Rec. Doc. 8), and his objections to the Report and Recommendation (Rec. Doc.
9). After consideration and for the reasons discussed below,
IT IS ORDERED plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED and that the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Rec. Doc. 9) is hereby ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY
as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the lawsuit be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 15, 2022, plaintiff alleges that while riding a Regional Transit Authority
(“RTA”) bus, the bus was rear-ended. Rec. Doc 1 at 3. Plaintiff contends that the impact of the
collision pushed him forward against an empty seating area. Id. He alleges the driver of the bus
exited to investigate the collision without first checking passengers for possible injuries. Id.
Plaintiff also alleges that, almost simultaneously with the collision and while he was still
aboard the bus, he received a routine phone call from St. Thomas Community Health Center. Id.
After learning of plaintiff’s back and neck impact, and plaintiff’s mention of a light headache, the
St. Thomas personnel suggested plaintiff should seek any available medical treatment at the scene
or go to the emergency room. Id. No paramedic reported to the scene, and plaintiff declined to go
to the emergency room due to the risk of COVID-19. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that moments later, an RTA supervisor arrived on scene and assessed the
damage of the vehicles. Id. at 4. After twenty minutes, plaintiff alleges the driver and supervisor
asked the passengers to exit the bus and to supply their names and phone numbers. Id. Plaintiff
notes the RTA staff departed the scene without obtaining an injury report. Id.
Plaintiff urges that RTA has an affirmative duty under the Eighth Amendment to provide
medical care to its passengers after an accident. Id. at 5. He argues that RTA demonstrated
deliberate indifference and negligence when it failed to investigate injuries from the accident and
failed to consider his grievances. Id. Specifically, the denial of medical care, he asserts, amounts
to cruel and unusual punishment and deliberate indifference. Id. at 6. He argues further that by
failing to summon medical care, RTA denied him due process. See id. Plaintiff also asserts that
RTA has violated its own rules, regulations, and policies. Id. He argues that RTA has misused
authority and that it is liable for the “tort of deliberate indifference.” Id. at 7.
On June 1, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See Rec.
Doc. 2. This Court granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis on June 9, 2023, but ordered
that summons be withheld and that plaintiff show cause why this case should not be summarily
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Rec. Doc. 3
at 1–2.
Plaintiff timely filed his response on June 30, 2023. Rec. Doc. 7. Therein, he concedes his
Eighth Amendment claim is inapplicable. Id. at 1. Plaintiff argues his actual claim arises under the
Fourteenth Amendment. Id. He alleges that RTA had a duty under the Fourteenth Amendment to
provide medical care when its passengers are involved in an accident. Id. at 2. Plaintiff asserts his
claims are based on negligence and RTA’s breach of its duty of care. See id. Plaintiff submits that
Louisiana state law and federal law grant individuals the freedom to wait on the scene for medical
care and to participate in the investigation without interference from RTA. Id. at 2–3. Plaintiff
argues that RTA interfered with these rights by excluding him from its accident investigation,
which naturally involves any needed medical attention. Id. at 3. He contends that had RTA not
interfered, on-scene medical treatment would have been administered. Id. at 5. As evidence of due
process violations, he further argues that he was deprived of rights established by RTA’s policies
and regulations. Id. at 3.
Lastly, plaintiff insists that RTA is a state actor, therefore the challenged conduct of RTA
constitutes state action. Id. Thus, his suit can be supported under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See id.
On August 8, 2023, Magistrate Judge van Meerveld recommended the suit be dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Rec. Doc. 8 at 1. On August
22, 2023, plaintiff timely objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Rec.
Doc. 9.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
Federal law states that for in forma pauperis cases, a court shall dismiss a case at any time
if the court determines that the action is “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii). In plain language, Section 1915 requires dismissal
if the court is satisfied that the case fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). “[A] complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted when it does not contain ‘sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013)
(quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be
waived, and the district court must dismiss the action when “it appears by suggestion of the parties
or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter.” Avitts v. Amoco Prod. Co., 53
F.3d 690, 693 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)).
Plaintiff invokes this Court’s federal question jurisdiction by alleging a claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. See Rec. Doc. 9 at 2. Section 1983 provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to
be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction
thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. . . .
42 U.S.C. § 1983. In other words, in order for a plaintiff to succeed in a Section 1983 claim, he
would have to allege (1) a violation of a right secured by the Constitution of the United States and
(2) demonstrate that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state
law. Victoria W. v. Larpenter, 369 F.3d 475, 482 (5th Cir. 2004).
Plaintiff maintains RTA violated his due process rights of the Fourteenth Amendment. See
Rec. Doc. 9 at 2. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State
shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const.
amend. XIV. To establish a violation, the plaintiff must show the existence of “a liberty or property
interest which has been interfered with by the State” and that the “procedures attendance upon that
deprivation” were constitutionally insufficient. Kentucky Dep’t of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S.
454, 460, 109 (1989). In order to have a property interest in a benefit, “a person clearly must have
more than an abstract need or desire for it,” and plaintiff must “have a legitimate claim of
entitlement to it.” Bd. Of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972).
B. This Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Subject matter jurisdiction does not exist because plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief
under Section 1983. Plaintiff contends his due process rights were violated when RTA failed to
investigate his injuries or provide him with medical care after the bus was rear-ended. Rec. Doc.
9 at 2. However, plaintiff does not provide a legal basis for his claim that he has either a liberty or
property interest in being interviewed following a motor-vehicle accident, or that the RTA was
obligated to investigate or provide him with medical care. There is no claim that RTA prevented
him from seeking or receiving medical care; plaintiff stated in the complaint he did not seek
medical care due to his claimed fear of infection with the COVID-19 virus. Plaintiff has therefore
not alleged the existence of a protected interest that would implicate due process. Thus, this Court
can find no basis to conclude that plaintiff may have been entitled by state law to have RTA
investigate his injuries or provide him with medical care.
Because plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for a violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment, he cannot state a cognizable claim under Section 1983. Thus, there is no basis for
this Court to exercise federal question jurisdiction. It would also be futile to direct another
amendment of the complaint based on the foregoing analysis.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 23rd day of January, 2024
_______________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE