Attia v. Ford Motor Co. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOEL B. ATTIA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-00341-JB-N
)
FORD MOTOR CO., et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Joel Attia, who is proceeding without counsel (pro se) and without
prepayment of fees (in forma pauperis), filed this a complaint against Ford Motor
Company and Merit Hospital.1 See (Doc. 1).2 Upon careful review of the complaint
(Doc. 1), the undersigned finds that this action is due to be DISMISSED without
prejudice.
I. 	Complaint (Doc. 1).
On September 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed this complaint alleging that while
driving his Ford truck at 50 miles per hour, his front tires “blew out,” causing him
to hit his head on the steering wheel (because the airbag failed to deploy) and suffer
a broken neck and severed spinal cord. (Doc. 1; PageID.4-5). He alleges having no
1 	Plaintiff filed this civil action based on diversity jurisdiction, identifying
Defendant Ford Motor Company as a citizen of the state of Michigan and Defendant
Merit Hospital as a citizen of Georgia. (Doc. 1; PageID.2).
2 	The assigned District Judge has referred the complaint to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge for appropriate action under 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(b), Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 72, and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a). See S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(b);
(9/05/2023 electronic reference).
Case 1:23-cv-00341-JB-N Doc# 8 Filed 03/27/25 Page 1 of 9 PageID#
<pageID>

2
recall of the incident until he heard “’on the news 2 years later = Ford trucks 2010
down to 2002 has been recalled with air bag safety issues’ to[sic] late for [his]
severed neck and spinal cord.” (Id.; PageID.5). However, he goes on to allege that he
died in the accident but after “God, Jesus gave [him] back life,” he took off his
seatbelt, crawled through the top of the sunroof, “stood and started walking around
the front of the truck smoking a cigarette,” where he met an undercover agent who
claimed to have witnessed the accident and another man who told him to lay down
because he might be in shock. (Id.; PageID.6-7). He claims one of the men “did
something” to him and he “fell asleep” and woke up in Merit Hospital, where he
could not move for 4 days. (Id.; PageID.7). Thereafter, Plaintiff claims he was
“kidnapped” because he was held in the hospital’s psychiatric ward without a court
order. (Id.; PageID.8). He further alleges Merit Hospital did not tell him that he
suffered a broken neck and severed spinal cord for a couple of weeks. He claims just
before he was released from Merit Hospital:
[T]hey took me down to MRI and checked my neck and spinal cord shook
their heads and left and ruined the paper work on purpose saying that
I was 102 year old China Reno playing I guess, but it has been 10 years
and after 25 hospitals all have lied to my face. I have a credit card sixed
computer and it hurts me, but I will never be able to get it out, I am
holding it in my belly for Jesus. They tried to take it out, but we have
one layer of skin, and after 10 or 12 the doctor gave up, to his shargrin
he is the one that put it in.
(Id.; PageID.8-9). Plaintiff requests monetary relief in the amount of two quadrillion
dollars. (Id.; PageID.3).
II. 	Standard of Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
Case 1:23-cv-00341-JB-N Doc# 8 Filed 03/27/25 Page 2 of 9 PageID#
<pageID>

3
Because Plaintiff is proceeding without the prepayment of fees, his complaint
is subject to review under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii), which requires dismissal of a
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that the Court finds (1) is frivolous or
malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii).
Pertinent here, a claim may be dismissed as “frivolous where it lacks an
arguable basis in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim
is frivolous as a matter of law where, among other things, the defendants are
immune from suit, id. at 327, the claim seeks to enforce a right that clearly does not
exist, id., or an affirmative defense (such as the statute of limitations) would defeat
the claim, Clark v. Georgia Pardons & Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636, 640 n.2 (11th Cir.
1990).
Also, to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, the allegations must show plausibility. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 557, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1966, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009).
That is, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level” and must be a “‘plain statement’ possess[ing] enough heft to
Case 1:23-cv-00341-JB-N Doc# 8 Filed 03/27/25 Page 3 of 9 PageID#
<pageID>

4
‘sho[w] that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557 (second
brackets in original).
When considering a pro se litigant's allegations, a court gives them a liberal
construction holding them to a more lenient standard than those of an attorney,
Tannenbaum v. U.S., 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998), but “this leniency does
not give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an
otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Campbell v. Air Jamaica
Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168–69 (11th Cir.) (citation and quotation marks omitted),
cert. denied, 574 U.S. 1047 (2014). The court treats factual allegations as true, but it
does not treat as true conclusory assertions or a recitation of a cause of action's
elements. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In addition, a pro se litigant “is subject to the
relevant law and rules of court including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989).
III. 	Discussion.
It is difficult for the Court to discern the actual claims asserted by Plaintiff,
as the allegations are unclear, nonsensical, and Plaintiff fails to state a direct claim
against the defendants. Consequently, the complaint allegations are insufficient for
the defendants to be able to answer the complaint. As pleaded, Plaintiff’s complaint
is simply indiscernible, or frivolous, and should be dismissed. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at
325 (An action is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in either fact or law.”).
Courts have the authority to “dismiss [as frivolous] a claim based on indisputably
meritless legal theory,” as well as to dismiss claims “whose factual contentions are
Case 1:23-cv-00341-JB-N Doc# 8 Filed 03/27/25 Page 4 of 9 PageID#
<pageID>

5
clearly baseless.” Id. at 327. Courts are not obligated to allow an opportunity to
amend when a claim is patently frivolous. Nezbeda v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Corp.,
789 F. App'x 180, 183 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (“The district court may dismiss
a plaintiff's claims sua sponte—without requiring or permitting the plaintiff to
amend—if it concludes that the claims are frivolous.”); Gary v. U.S. Government,
540 F. App'x 916, 918 (11th Cir. 2013) (“[W]e conclude that the district court did
not abuse its discretion by not affording [the plaintiff] an opportunity to amend her
complaint because any amendment would have been futile, as none of [the
plaintiff's] allegations are credible or rational.”).
Moreover, the action appears to be barred by the statute of limitations, as
Plaintiff asserted the same set of facts in a lawsuit filed in June of 2021, see Attia v.
Ford Motor Co., 21-cv-0280-KD-N (S.D. Ala.),3 where Plaintiff claimed that Ford
Motor Company was liable for his airbag failing to deploy “in August 10-20[.] Broke
neck[.] They addmitted [sic] to air bad [sic] falty [sic] in Oct. 20[.]” (Id.; Doc. 2,
PageID.5). In that same matter, he alleges: “On August 10, 2000, I fractured my
neck in a one car accident the air bag did not deploy I hit my front bumper.” (Id.;
Doc. 4, PageID.20). And in an unsigned filing titled “Facts of the Case,” he alleges:
“I had a crash and I hit the median head on, but my air bag in the steering wheel
3 	“A court may take judicial notice of its own records and the records of inferior
courts.” United States v. Rey, 811 F.2d 1453, 1457 n.5 (11th Cir. 1987); see also
Horne v. Potter, 392 F. App'x 800, 802 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (“The district
court properly took judicial notice of the documents in [the plaintiff’s] first case,
which were public records that were ‘not subject to reasonable dispute’ because they
were ‘capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose
accuracy could not reasonably be questioned.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)).
Case 1:23-cv-00341-JB-N Doc# 8 Filed 03/27/25 Page 5 of 9 PageID#
<pageID>

6
did not deploy, this was on August 10th 2020 I fractured my neck, I had a Ford
Truck 2004 .... I [sic] December Ford announced on national news that all trucks
from 2002 to 20010 [sic] had faulty air bags as mine was.” (Id.; Doc. 5, PageID.26).
Plaintiff also attaches the same photographs from his 2021 suit to this current
action. (Compare Doc. 1; PageID.10-11 and Doc. 3, with 21-cv-0280-KD-N at Doc. 5-
1; PageID.28-29 (the photographs are of the same wrecked truck, and both are
stamped/posted with the same claim no.: 20-5339005 01 on the photographs)).
Because Plaintiff was clearly aware of the cause of action against Defendant
Ford Motor Company in June of 2021, if not earlier, he cannot now bring this
lawsuit.
In Alabama, the governing limitations period is two years for personal injury
claims, including those against car manufacturers. See Ala. Code § 6–2–38.
Therefore, to have his claim heard, Plaintiff was required to bring the claim within
two years from the date that the limitations period began to run. “‘[T]he statute of
limitations does not begin to run until the facts which would support a cause of
action are apparent or should be apparent to a person with a reasonably prudent
regard for his rights.’” McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168, 1173 (11th Cir. 2008)
(quoting Mullinax v. McElhenney, 817 F.2d 711, 716 (11th Cir. 1987)). While the
complaint does not provide the date of the accident or the date Plaintiff learned of a
Ford Motor Company recall or air bag problem, it is obvious that he knew of the
relevant facts on June 21, 2021, when he filed his previous case, 21-cv-0280-KD-N.
It thus reasons that his claim accrued no later than June 21, 2021, when he filed
Case 1:23-cv-00341-JB-N Doc# 8 Filed 03/27/25 Page 6 of 9 PageID#
<pageID>

7
his previous lawsuit. (See 21-cv-0280-KD-N at Doc. 1). Therefore, at the very latest,
Plaintiff had until June 21, 2023, to file suit against Ford Motor Company for the
incident and/or injuries caused by the alleged accident. Consequently, this current
action, filed on September 5, 2023, is past the applicable statute of limitations
period, and his claim is now time-barred.4
Similarly, Plaintiff’s claim against Merit Hospital is barred by the statute of
limitations. In his complaint, Plaintiff states that he was taken to Merit Hospital
immediately after his front tires blew out – and he hit his head because his truck
airbag did not deploy. Accordingly, the claims against Merit Hospital accrued at
the same time as the accident. Thus, for the same reason Plaintiff’s claim against
4 	A litigant who seeks to toll the statute of limitations “bears the burden of
establishing two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and
(2) that some extraordinary circumstances stood in his way’ as to the filing of his
action.” Weaver v. Firestone, 155 So. 3d 952, 957 (Ala. 2013) (citation omitted); see
also Bd. Of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 483 (1980) (Federal courts apply state
rules for tolling). The Alabama Supreme Court has stated “the threshold necessary
to trigger equitable tolling is very high, lest the exceptions swallow the rule[;]”
however, “equitable tolling is available in extraordinary circumstances that are
beyond the petitioner's control and that are unavoidable even with the exercise of
diligence.” Ward v. State, 46 So. 3d 888, 897 (Ala. 2007) (citation omitted); see
Weaver, 155 So. 3d at 958 (citing Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96
(1990)) (“We have allowed equitable tolling in situations where the claimant has
actively pursued his judicial remedies by filing a defective pleading during the
statutory period, or where the complainant has been induced or tricked by his
adversary's misconduct into allowing the filing deadline to pass. We have generally
been much less forgiving in receiving late filings where the claimant failed to
exercise due diligence in preserving his legal rights.” (footnotes omitted)).
Plaintiff has offered no explanation for why his claim is untimely, and there
are no facts provided in the complaint that suggest equitable tolling would be
appropriate under the circumstances of this action.
Case 1:23-cv-00341-JB-N Doc# 8 Filed 03/27/25 Page 7 of 9 PageID#
<pageID>

8
Ford Motor Company is time-barred, his claim against Merit Hospital is also
barred by Alabama’s two-year statute of limitations. See Ala. Code § 6–2–38.
Generally, plaintiffs proceeding without an attorney are given at least one
opportunity to amend their pleadings and draft a complaint that might state a
claim. Jenkins v. Walker, 620 F. App'x 709, 711 (11th Cir. 2015) (“When a more
carefully drafted complaint might state a claim, a district court should give a pro se
plaintiff at least one chance to amend the complaint before the court dismisses the
action.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (courts should grant leave to amend
“freely. . . when justice so requires”). Here, however, amendment would be futile as
the time for filing suit under Alabama law has clearly passed. Accordingly, this
action is due to be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as
frivolous.5
IV. 	Conclusion.
Based upon the foregoing reason, it is RECOMMENDED that the complaint
be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, prior to service of process, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because it is frivolous and fails to state a claim and
amendment is futile as the claims are barred by Alabama’s two-year statute of
limitations period.
5 	Dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice has the effect of
precluding him from refiling his claim due to the running of the statute of
limitations; thus, the dismissal is tantamount to a dismissal with prejudice. Justice
v. United States, 6 F.3d 1474, 1482 n.15 (11th Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, dismissal is
appropriate because Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to bring this claim since
its accrual.
Case 1:23-cv-00341-JB-N Doc# 8 Filed 03/27/25 Page 8 of 9 PageID#
<pageID>

9
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS
A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the
manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything
in it must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file
specific written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(c). The parties should note that under
Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's
findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge
on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal
conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the
consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection,
however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests
of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or
recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and
specify the place in the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation where the
disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference
or refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not specific.
DONE this 27th day of March, 2025.
/s/ KATHERINE P. NELSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-00341-JB-N Doc# 8 Filed 03/27/25 Page 9 of 9 PageID#
<pageID>