From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jackson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California
Sep 23, 2005
No. C 04-02945 SI (N.D. Cal. Sep. 23, 2005)

Opinion

No. C 04-02945 SI.

September 23, 2005


ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS


Plaintiff, Ronnie Jackson, filed a pro se complaint with this Court on July 20, 2004, alleging that defendant violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by refusing to allow Jackson and his traveling companion to use disabled seating during the entirety of a three-day bus trip from San Francisco to Baton Rouge. Defendant now moves to dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint.

In reviewing defendant's motion to dismiss, it has come to the Court's attention that Jackson's complaint fails to state a claim for relief on grounds that defendant did not raise in its motion. Jackson brings his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12184(b)(2)(C), which lies in Title III of the ADA. First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 17-18. When private plaintiffs seek redress for violations of Title III of the ADA, however, they may obtain only injunctive relief. See 42 U.S.C. § 12188 (authorizing monetary damages only where suit brought by the Attorney General); Fischer v. SJB P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2000) ("Monetary relief is not an option for private individuals under Title III ofthe ADA."). Yet Jackson seeks only monetary relief in his complaint. First Am. Compl. at 10. Given that Jackson has not requested injunctive relief, his complaint fails to state a claim under Title III of the ADA.

If he chooses, Jackson may amend his complaint to remedy the above defect. If Jackson wishes to continue seeking monetary damages, he has two options available to him. First, he may identify a different provision of federal law that entitles him to damages. Alternatively, he may amend his complaint to seek injunctive relief under Title III of the ADA, and may add supplemental California-law claims that provide for monetary relief. See, e.g., California Civil Code §§ 51, 52, 54.1, 54.3. Jackson must file his amended complaint no later than October 21, 2005. Failure to file the amended complaint by the deadline will result in the dismissal of the action.

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS defendant's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 29).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Jackson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California
Sep 23, 2005
No. C 04-02945 SI (N.D. Cal. Sep. 23, 2005)
Case details for

Jackson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:RONNIE JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: Sep 23, 2005

Citations

No. C 04-02945 SI (N.D. Cal. Sep. 23, 2005)