U.S. DISTRICT N.D. OF AL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA WESTERN DIVISION

LORETTA CAMPBELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 7:23-cv-01248-LSC ) AMTRAK, ) ) Defendant. ) ) OPINION Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, filed on November 11, 2023. (Doc. 12.) For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s motion (doc. 12) is due to bbe GRANTED. On July 19, 2023, Plaintiff Loretta Campbell (“Plaintiff”), acting pro se, filed this action in the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, against Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a Amtrak (“Defendant”). (Doc. 1 q I(1).)' Adjudging Plaintiff indigent, that court waived the prepayment of filing fees

References to “Doc. _” are to the document number of the pleadings, motions, and other materials in the court file, as compiled and designated on the docket sheet by the Clerk. Unless otherwise noted, pinpoint citations are to the page of the electronically filed document in the court’s CM/ECF system, which may not correspond to the pagination on the original “hard copy” of the document presented for filing. Page 1 of 3

and costs. (Doc. 1-1 at 10.) On September 20, 2023, Defendant removed the action

to this Court. (Doc. 1.) On September 21, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 3.) That same day, this Court Ordered Plaintiff to replead her Complaint or face dismissal of this action. (Doc. 6.) This Court explained that Plaintiff’s Complaint “alleges that Defendant broke her drone and laptop, but fails to describe how her property was damaged, who damaged it, or how Defendant is factually or legally responsible.” (/d.) The Court afforded Plaintiff an opportunity to correct the pleading deficiencies by filing an amended complaint including “cognizable claims and specific factual allegations supporting each of those claims,” and cautioned that a failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this action. (/d.) In cases where an indigent plaintiff has applied to proceed without

prepayment of fees, a court shall dismiss the case if the court determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See

(e)(2)(B); see also Jones v. Bock,

(2007). Although this Court liberally construes pro se pleadings, a pro se complaint must still be dismissed when it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Armstrong v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 7:21-cv-01678-LSC,

, at *1 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 5, 2022). A plaintiff sufficiently states a claim “only where the

Page 2 of 3

facts alleged enable ‘the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’” Franklin v. Curry,

(11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Ashcroft v. Igbal,

(2009)). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to plausibly state a cognizable cause of action. The Amended Complaint does little, if anything, to clarify what Defendant did, if anything, to injure Plaintiff. Instead of alleging facts which could support a claim for relief, the Amended Complaint appears to describe Plaintiff’s frustrations with the legal process, her recent travels, and the scheduling of apparently unrelated medical appointments. (See doc. 11 at 5-6.) Although this Court appreciates the complexity of legal procedure, it cannot sustain a cause of action where, as here, the plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to plausibly state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. Franklin,

; Armstrong,

, at *1. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 12) is due to be GRANTED, and this action is due to be DISMISSED. An Order consistent with this Opinion will be entered contemporaneously herewith. DONE anp ORDERED ON NOVEMBER 13, 2023. Xe UNITED STATES DIS¥RICT JUDGE 215647

Page 3 of 3