The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CURTIS SANDERS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 3:24-cv-2358-DWD
)
BI-STATE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
This Memorandum & Order addresses Defendant Bi-State Development Agency’s
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Curtis Sanders’ Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). If a dismissal is granted in this case, the issue is whether it should be
with or without prejudice. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS
Defendant’s Motion and finds that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate in this case,
as Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and it is not beyond doubt that no amendment would cure
the deficiencies in the Complaint.
I. BACKGROUND
On or about July 25, 2024, Plaintiff Curtis Sanders, proceeding pro se, filed a
handwritten complaint alleging that Defendant Bi-State Development Agency violated
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) regulations. Plaintiff bases these allegations on an
incident occurring on or about May 16, 2024, where Plaintiff was denied access to place
his electric bicycle on Defendant’s bus bicycle rack, allegedly causing an eight-minute
delay until Plaintiff was able to board the next bus. When Plaintiff allegedly asked the
bus operator for the reason that Plaintiff was not able to place his bicycle on the bus’s
bicycle rack, Plaintiff was purportedly told that battery-powered bicycles were not
permitted on the bus. The next Bi-State bus allowed Plaintiff access and allegedly
permitted him to place his bicycle on the bicycle rack, and the operator of that vehicle
allegedly informed Plaintiff that the prior operator was mistaken in not allowing him to
board with his bicycle. As a result of this interaction, Plaintiff further alleges knee injuries
because of his eight-minute wait for the next Bi-State bus. Defendant Bi-State
Development Agency filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6).
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
a. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must dismiss a claim for relief when the complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A complaint must contain enough
facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The complaint cannot rely on mere conclusions without factual
support. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
b. Dismissal With or Without Prejudice
Generally, a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is with prejudice if the claim is not one
upon which relief can be granted. However, courts in the Seventh Circuit typically allow
at least one opportunity to amend the complaint before dismissing it with prejudice,
particularly for pro se litigants. Tate v. SCR Medical Transp., 809 F.3d 343, 346 (2015).
c. Treatment of Pro Se Complaints
Courts apply a less stringent standard to pro se complaints and have a duty to
construe them liberally. Kyle v. Patterson, 196 F.3d 695, 697 (1999). Courts should allow
pro se litigants ample opportunity to amend their complaints if doing so could enable
them to state a meritorious claim. See Gonzalez-Koeneke v. West, 791 F.3d 801, 807 (2015).
III. ANALYSIS
The Plaintiff’s pro se status requires the Court to construe his Complaint liberally,
and to provide him with an opportunity to amend if it appears that he could state a claim
by doing so. The Seventh Circuit has consistently emphasized the importance of allowing
pro se litigants to amend their complaints unless it is beyond doubt that no set of facts
could support their claims. The Plaintiff alleges violations of the ADA, Title VI, and EEO
regulations but his factual allegations are insufficient to support essential elements of
these claims. For instance, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege that the bus driver was
aware of any disability of Plaintiff, or that the electric bicycle was a necessary
accommodation for his disability. Similarly, the Complaint does not allege any facts
suggesting discrimination based on race, color, or national origin under Title VI. These
deficiencies support dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). While the Plaintiff’s complaint is
deficient in its current form, it is not clear that an amendment would be futile. Thus,
Plaintiff should be given an opportunity to clarify and expand upon his allegations.
Dismissal with prejudice is only appropriate where amendment would be futile.
KAP Holdings, LLC v. Mar-Cone Appliance Parts Co., 55 F.4th 517, 521, 529 (2022). In this
case, the Plaintiff has not yet been given an opportunity to amend his Complaint, and it
is not certain from the face of the Complaint that an amendment would be futile. Leave
to amend should be given freely unless it is clear that the defect cannot be corrected.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is well-founded under Rule 12(b)(6), as Plaintiff’s
Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. However, the liberal
construction afforded to pro se complaints and the potential for amendment weigh in
favor of dismissal without prejudice.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. However,
given the Plaintiff’s pro se status and the possibility that an amendment could cure the
deficiencies in the Complaint, the dismissal should be without prejudice. The Plaintiff is
DIRECTED to file an Amended Complaint on or before May 7, 2025. He is WARNED
that the failure to timely comply with this directive could result in a dismissal of this
action for want of prosecution under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 10, 2025
s/ David W. Dugan
____________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge