McDonald v. Transit Authority River City et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 7/12/2023: The Court will, by separate Order, dismiss this action. cc: Plaintiff, pro se (EAS)

Case 3:23-cv-00077-JHM Document 11 Filed 07/12/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 37

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
LAZARUS MCDONALD

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-CV-P77-JHM

TRANSIT AUTHORITY RIVER CITY et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Lazarus McDonald, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated
this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The complaint is before the Court for screening pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled
on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s
claims will be dismissed.
I. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
Plaintiff names as Defendants Transit Authority River City (TARC), “(Female) Bus
Driver,” Emergency Medical Services of Louisville, “(Female) Paramedic (1),” and “(Male)
Paramedic (2).” He states that on February 5, 2021, he boarded a TARC bus on Popular Level
Road in Louisville and took a seat in the back. He states that about ten minutes into his bus ride,
the bus driver stopped at a bus stop “that was down inside a bowl,” where it was “pitch” dark to
take a break because she was two minutes early; immediately thereafter a drunk driver rearended the bus at 60 miles per hour. Plaintiff states that the impact threw him from his seat,
causing him head, neck, knee and back injuries. He states that he passed out and that when he
came to, the female paramedic was asking him his name and whether he could get up from the
bus floor. Plaintiff alleges that he tried several times and then informed her that he could not.
He alleges that she then “out of the blue” grabbed him by the hood of his sweater and “snatched”

Case 3:23-cv-00077-JHM Document 11 Filed 07/12/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 38

him by the neck, yelling to him to get up or she could not help him. He states that he responded
that he could not move or feel his legs, but she again grabbed his hood and “started pulling me
by the neck” yelling for him to get up or she could not help him. He then yelled at her that she
was choking him and that he could not breathe Plaintiff states at that point the male paramedic
came on the bus, and they transported him by stretcher to the ambulance.

Once on the

ambulance, the male and female paramedics asked him his name, but, Plaintiff states, that he was
too emotional to speak. Plaintiff alleges that both paramedics then “started using profanity
words . . . and telling me that they should put me out of the truck into the freezing rain.”
According to the complaint, the bus driver who was in the back of the ambulance “started
crying and vomiting” because of the way the paramedics were treating him, and the paramedics
left him alone at that point. Plaintiff states that once they reached the hospital the paramedics
continued to “badger” him about his name, but Plaintiff refused to speak to them “so they
wheeled [him] to the back of the hospital and placed me in a room where I didn’t get any
medical attention until at least 2-3 hours where I layed in that room in mental and physical pain
and agony.”
Plaintiff states that he is “suing the bus driver for contributory negligence.” He alleges
that EMS of Louisville is vicariously responsible and negligent in its hiring, training,
supervising, and retention of its employees.
Plaintiff alleges that the paramedics intentionally, willfully or recklessly violated his
constitutional First and Eighth Amendment rights and acted outside the scope of their
employment.

2

Case 3:23-cv-00077-JHM Document 11 Filed 07/12/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 39

Plaintiff states that he has organic brain damage “which caused me permanent
impairment of earning power to receive money from donating plasma,” as well as anxiety attacks
when he thinks he might need assistance from paramedics.
II. ANALYSIS
When a prisoner initiates a civil action seeking redress from a governmental entity,
officer, or employee, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss the action, if the
Court determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and (2). When determining whether a plaintiff has stated a claim upon
which relief may be granted, the Court must construe the complaint in a light most favorable to
the plaintiff and accept all of the factual allegations as true. Prater v. City of Burnside, Ky., 289
F.3d 417, 424 (6th Cir. 2002). While a reviewing court must liberally construe pro se pleadings,
Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam), to avoid dismissal, a complaint
must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “A pleading that
offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will
not do.’ Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement.’” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557).

3

Case 3:23-cv-00077-JHM Document 11 Filed 07/12/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 40

A. Section 1983 claims
The statute of limitations for § 1983 actions is governed by the limitations period for
personal-injury cases in the state where the cause of action arose. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S.
384, 387 (2007). In Kentucky, § 1983 actions are limited by the one-year statute of limitations
found in Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.140(1)(a). See Collard v. Ky. Bd. of Nursing, 896 F.2d 179, 182
(6th Cir. 1990). “Although state law provides the statute of limitations to be applied in a § 1983
damages action, federal law governs the question of when that limitations period begins to run.”
Wolfe v. Perry, 412 F.3d 707, 714 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262, 272
(6th Cir. 1984)). A § 1983 claim does not accrue until the plaintiff knows or should know of the
claim. Dibrell v. City of Knoxville, 984 F.3d 1156, 1162 (6th Cir. 2021); see also Ruiz-Bueno v.
Maxim HealthCare Servs., 659 F. App’x 830, 833-34 (6th Cir. 2016) (“[T]he statute-oflimitations period begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know that the act
providing the basis of his or her injury has occurred.”) (citing Cooey v. Strickland, 479 F.3d 412,
416 (6th Cir. 2007)). When the face of the complaint shows that an action is time-barred, the
case may be dismissed summarily upon screening. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. at 215.
Here, it is clear from the complaint that Plaintiff knew of Defendants’ acts on the date
that they occurred, i.e., February 5, 2021. Consequently, the one-year state of limitations period
expired on February 5, 2022.
Because Plaintiff is a prisoner, his complaint is considered filed on the date that he
certified it was submitted to prison authorities for mailing, see Richard v. Ray, 290 F.3d 810, 813
(6th Cir. 2002) (holding that the mailbox rule “applies to civil complaints filed by pro se
petitioners incarcerated at the time of filing”), which in this case was December 27, 2022, more

4

Case 3:23-cv-00077-JHM Document 11 Filed 07/12/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 41

than 11 months after the limitations period had run. The Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1983
claims as time-barred.
B. State-law claims
The remainder of Plaintiff’s claims sound in state law. Because the Court will dismiss
Plaintiff federal claims, it declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s statelaw claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that a district court may decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims over which it has original
jurisdiction).
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will, by separate Order, dismiss this action.
Date:

July 12, 2023

cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
4414.009

5