Walton v. United States Treasury Department et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Assuming the truth of the broad statements in his second amended complaint, Mr. Walton still has not alleged specific facts, so he has not provided adequate notice to the defendants of the claims against them. (Doc. 22 , p. 2). Therefore, the Court grants the defendants' motions and dismisses Mr. Walton's case without prejudice. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 10/7/2019. (KEK)

FILED
2019 Oct-07 AM 09:00
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

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

MICHAEL DWAYNE WALTON,

}
}
Plaintiff,
}
}
v.
}
}
US TREASURY DEPARTMENT, et }
al.,
}
}
Defendants.
}

Case No.: 2:18-cv-01646-MHH

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Michael Dwayne Walton has filed a second amended
complaint in which he names as defendants the United States Treasury Department,
Regions Bank agents, the State of Alabama, and the United States Departments of
Justice and Veterans Affairs. (Doc. 26). The defendants have moved to dismiss the
second amended complaint. (Docs. 28, 29, 31). The Court held a telephone
conference concerning the motions. (Sept. 10, 2019 minute entry). Consistent with
the discussion on the record during that conference, the Court grants the defendants’
motions and dismisses Mr. Walton’s claims without prejudice.
To survive a defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In considering a defendant’s 12(b)(6) motion to
1

dismiss, the Court accepts the plaintiff’s well-pleaded facts as true and views the
allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Sun Life
Assurance Co. v. Imperial Premium Fin., LLC, 904 F.3d 1197, 1207 (11th Cir.
2018); Little v. CRSA, 744 Fed. Appx. 679, 681 (11th Cir. 2018).
Pro se pleadings “are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted
by attorneys” and are liberally construed. Boxer X v. Harris, 437 F.3d 1107, 1110
(11th Cir. 2006). This leniency, however, does not allow the Court to “serve as de
facto counsel for [a party] or rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to
sustain an action.” Ausar-El ex rel. Small, Jr. v. Bank of Am. Home Loans Servicing
LP, 448 Fed. Appx. 1, 2 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). A pleading that contains only “‘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.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (alteration in original) (internal citations omitted)).
Consistent with the instructions that the Court provided in its July 15, 2019 order
(Doc. 22), Mr. Walton was required to provide factual allegations that “raise a right
to relief above the speculative level.” Saunders v. Duke, 766 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th
Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2

Consistent with the discussion during the September 10, 2019 telephone
conference and applying the standards discussed above and in the Court’s July 15,
2019 order, the Court concludes that Mr. Walton has not alleged sufficient facts to
enable him to move forward. Assuming the truth of the broad statements in his
second amended complaint, Mr. Walton still has not alleged specific facts, so he has
not provided adequate notice to the defendants of the claims against them. (Doc. 22,
p. 2). Therefore, the Court grants the defendants’ motions and dismisses Mr.
Walton’s case without prejudice.
The Court asks the Clerk to please mail a copy of this order to Mr. Walton at
his address of record.
DONE and ORDERED this October 7, 2019.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3