Myers v. Gen. Motors

Decision Date15 October 2018
Docket NumberCIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:17-CV-122
PartiesKENNETH MYERS, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia

KENNETH MYERS, Plaintiff,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:17-CV-122

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA MARTINSBURG

October 15, 2018


(GROH)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Kenneth Myers' ("Plaintiff") pro se Amended Complaint. By order dated October 10, 2018, Chief Judge Groh referred Plaintiff's Amended Complaint to the undersigned, designating and authorizing the undersigned to also reconsider Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 5]. ECF No. 26. Because Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the undersigned must conduct a preliminary review to determine whether Plaintiff's pro se Amended Complaint [ECF No. 25] sets forth any viable claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Because the undersigned concludes that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed, without prejudice, and Plaintiffs' motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied as moot.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY & THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

In his original complaint, Plaintiff alleged that on August 30, 2017, Plaintiff was

Page 2

driving to his home in Keyser, West Virginia, from work in Winchester, Virginia, where he was employed at Rubber Maid. Compl., ECF No. 1. During the roughly seventy-mile drive, Plaintiff noticed something burning under the hood of his 2002 Chevrolet Impala. Id. at 2. Suddenly, smoke started pouring into the cabin of his vehicle, causing him to choke. Id. The smoke was so intense that Plaintiff was forced to stop his car in the middle of the road and run for safety. Soon, Plaintiff's vehicle was engulfed in flames. Id. Plaintiff attached a variety of documents to his original complaint, including photographs of his car [ECF Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3], a recall notice for recall number 15757 related to under hood fire [ECF No. 1-5], and several letters from General Motors' ("Defendant") Central Claims Unit [ECF No. 1-7].

On October 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed the original complaint alleging that Defendant knew about an alleged ignition defect two months before issuing a recall. ECF No. 1, at 2. Based on that allegation, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a Conditional Transfer Order transferring Plaintiff's case to Multidistrict Litigation No. 2543. However, Plaintiff moved to vacate the Panel's order, and on February 2, 2018, the Panel issued an Order Vacating Conditional Transfer Order because the factual allegations in Plaintiff's complaint differ from those at issue in MDL No. 2543. Order Vacating Conditional Transfer Order, ECF No. 6. Specifically, the Panel explained that although the complaint mentions an ignition switch defect and Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knew about the ignition switch defect before issuing a recall, the recall notice attached to Plaintiff's complaint does not relate to the ignition switch recall at issue in MDL No. 2543. Id. at 1. The Panel concluded that "Plaintiff's statement that his vehicle 'ignited' suggests that he misunderstood the meaning of the

Page 3

ignition switch recall, and that his vehicle did not experience the defect at issue in the MDL." Id.

After the Panel vacated its Conditional Transfer Order, the undersigned reviewed Plaintiff's original complaint and recommended Plaintiff's original complaint be dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. ECF No. 9. Chief Judge Groh adopted the undersigned's recommendation, and Plaintiff's original complaint was dismissed without prejudice. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his original complaint, and the Fourth Circuit instructed the District Court to allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 18. Chief Judge Groh then ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before November 18, 2018. ECF No. 22. On October 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed his amended complaint (styled as a motion to amend the complaint). ECF No. 25.

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he and his partner, Mr. Andrew, were traveling home from work on July 31, 2017 from the third shift "when suddenly right in the middle of the road, the car caught on firer[sic]." Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges that the only thing he and Mr. Andrew had time to do was stop the car in the middle of the road and jump out. Id. Plaintiff asserts that just like General Motors Corp. v. McGee, 837 So.2d 1010 (Fla. App. 4th 2002), his "vehicle united[sic] into flames, just like hundred[sic] of thousands of vehicle [sic] made by [Defendant]" and that "this defect is not the first Lawsuit against [Defendant]."1 Id.

Page 4

III. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

When filing a lawsuit in federal court, the plaintiff is required to pay certain filing fees. The court has the authority to allow a case to proceed without the prepayment of fees "by a person who affirms by affidavit that he or she is unable to pay costs . . . ." L.R. Gen. P. 3.01. The plaintiff files this affidavit along with his or her request or motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. The Supreme Court of the United States has explained that the purpose of the "federal in forma pauperis statute . . . is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).

When a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the court conducts a preliminary review of the lawsuit before allowing the case to proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). This...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT