Opinion
24-cv-11984
10-07-2024
STANLEY WILLIAMS MCCOY, Plaintiff, v. WAYNE T. JACKSON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 6) WITHOUT PREJUDICE
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On July 31, 2024, Plaintiff Stanley William McCoy filed this action against Defendant Wayne T. Jackson and others. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) McCoy then filed an Amended Complaint on September 3, 2024. (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 6.) Both the Complaint and Amended Complaint were filed using the Court's pro se “Complaint for a Civil Case Form.” (See id.) But neither pleading contains any factual allegations or requests for relief of any kind. Indeed, in both pleadings, the “Statement of Claim,” “Relief,” and “Additional Information” sections of the form were left entirely blank. (See Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.5-8; Am. Compl., ECF No. 6, PageID.58-60.) Nor do any of the attachments that McCoy has included with his pleadings provide any insight into what claims he may be bringing or against whom he seeks to bring those claims. Simply put, because McCoy has not made any allegations against any Defendant nor requested any relief against any Defendant, he has not stated any claims in his Amended Complaint that the Court can adjudicate. Moreover, while McCoy says that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction in this case based on the Court's “federal question” jurisdiction (see Am. Compl., ECF No. 6, PageID.56), because he has not made any allegations against any Defendant or identified any particular claims he seeks to bring against any Defendant, he has not provided any basis for the Court to conclude that it does, in fact, have subject-matter jurisdiction over his claims (whatever claims those may be).
For all of these reasons, because McCoy has not identified any specific claims against the Defendants, not pleaded any facts to support those claims, and not identified any relief that he seeks, the Court will DISMISS McCoy's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.