Ford v. Blanche et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NAMEROS D. FORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
TODD BLANCHE, et al.,
Defendants.
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
Case No.: 2:26-cv-1137-ACA
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After the court ordered pro se Plaintiff Nameros Ford to show cause why it
should not dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (doc. 3),
Mr. Ford filed an amended complaint, alleging claims against Defendant Attorney
General Todd Blanche under various federal statutes. (Doc. 4). The court then
ordered Mr. Ford to show cause why the court should not dismiss his amended
complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. (Doc. 6).
In response, Mr. Ford argues that the court should not dismiss his case because
he has stated “negligence” in his statement of claim, referenced other case numbers
in his amended complaint, and requested “[r]eview and full compensation” in those
cases. (Doc. 7). But merely stating “negligence,” without providing additional facts
to support such an allegation, does not state a plausible claim that would entitle
Mr. Ford to relief under federal law. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
FILED
2026 Oct-13 PM 04:48
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 2:26-cv-01137-ACA Document 9 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 3

(stating that “[a] pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation
of the elements of a cause of action” is insufficient to state a plausible claim)
(quotation marks omitted). In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8(a)
does not allow a plaintiff to incorporate the facts from prior complaints; it requires
instead that the plaintiff provide a “short and plain statement” showing that he is
entitled to relief in the case at hand. Although the court acknowledges that pro se
pleadings must be liberally construed, this leniency does not permit the court to
probe into Mr. Ford’s prior lawsuits for allegations beyond those asserted in the
complaint itself. Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168–69 (11th Cir.
2014) (observing that the court may not “serve as de facto counsel” for pro se
litigants or “rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action”).
Dismissal with prejudice is appropriate when a complaint cannot be more
carefully drafted to state a claim. Ounjian v. Globoforce, Inc., 89 F.4th 852, 862
(11th Cir. 2023). To the extent Mr. Ford’s response is construed as a motion for
leave to amend his complaint, the court WILL DENY the motion to amend as futile
and WILL DISMISS this action WITH PREJUDICE. The court WILL DENY
Mr. Ford’s motion to proceed to trial (doc. 8) as MOOT.
The court will enter a separate final order consistent with this opinion.
Case 2:26-cv-01137-ACA Document 9 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 3

DONE and ORDERED this October 13, 2026.
_________________________________
ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-01137-ACA Document 9 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 3