IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

GREGJOY ROETTO’CONNOR, ] ] Plaintiff, ] ] v. ] 2:24-cv-401-ACA ] CITY OF PELHAM, et al., ] ] Defendants. ]

MEMORANDUM OPINION In April 2024, Plaintiff Gregjoy RoettO’Connor filed the complaint in this case. (Doc. 1). The magistrate judge to whom the case was initially assigned ordered Mr. RoettO’Connor to file an amended complaint because the initial complaint failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1). (Doc. 5 at 6–7). Mr. RoettO’Connor filed an amended complaint (doc. 6), after which the magistrate judge reassigned the case to the undersigned (doc. 8). After reviewing the amended complaint, the court determined it was a shotgun pleading and ordered Mr. RoettO’Connor to replead again. (Doc. 10). The court warned him that if the second amended complaint remained a shotgun pleading, the court would dismiss this action with prejudice. (Id. at 5). Mr. RoettO’Connor’s second amended complaint continues to be a shotgun pleading. (See doc. 12). He names six defendants (id. at 2–3) but does not identify the claims he asserts (see id. at 6-8). From his statement on the amount in controversy, his claims might be: “False Charges, Personal injury, strategic sabotage[,] Sabotaging brakes of a vehicle, Hostile threats, denying the right of a fair trial[,] Coercement of a police officer[ | to seek vengeance, and false testimony.” (Id. at 6). But the second amended complaint remains “replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off.,

(11th Cir. 2015). Because “it is virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support which claim(s) for relief,”

(quotation marks and emphasis omitted), the court WILL DISMISS this action WITH PREJUDICE. The court will enter a separate final order consistent with this opinion. DONE and ORDERED this July 8, 2024. □□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE