WRIGHT JR et al v. ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
WILLIE F. WRIGHT, JR. and, 	)
TIFFANI A. BLASH, 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-503 (MTT)
)
ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY 	)
INSURANCE COMPANY, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
)
ORDER
Before the Court is the pro se Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their second amended
complaint (ECF 43). ECF 51. The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois transferred this case to the Middle District of Georgia in October 2025. ECF 34.
This Court then ordered Plaintiffs to amend their first amended complaint because the
Court was concerned about the lack of factual allegations supporting the Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction. ECF 41. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, but now move
to file a third amended complaint, recognizing that Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint
does not adequately comply with the Court’s order. ECF 41, 43, 51. Although Plaintiffs
attempt, in their proposed third amended complaint, to more closely comply with the
Court’s amendment instructions, Plaintiffs’ proposed third amended complaint still fails
to comply fully with the Court’s order. ECF 41, 51-1. Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’
motion to amend (ECF 51). However, given Plaintiffs’ pro se status, the Court will afford
Plaintiffs a final opportunity to amend their second amended complaint, and, in case the
Case 5:25-cv-00503-MTT Document 53 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 7

-2-
Court’s previous order was not clear, the Court also provides more specific instructions
guiding the form of Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to amend their second amended complaint
no later than February 3, 2026 in compliance with the following instructions.1
I. 	DISCUSSION
The third amended complaint will take the place of, and supersede, the Plaintiffs’
former complaints. See Hoefling v. City of Miami, 811 F.3d 1271, 1277 (11th Cir. 2016).
The Plaintiffs may not refer to, or incorporate by reference, their previous complaints,
and the Court will not look back to the facts alleged in former complaints once the
amended complaint is filed. Id. (holding that the filing of an amended pleading renders
the previous pleading a “legal nullity”).
A. Format of Amended Complaint
The amended complaint shall include the following sections: 1) Identification of
the Parties, 2) Basis for Jurisdiction, 3) Statement of Facts, 4) Statement of Claims.
Each section should include, at a minimum, the information addressed under each
heading below:
1. 	Identification of the Parties
In this section, Plaintiffs shall identify all parties to the case.
1 Failure to comply with the Court’s orders is grounds for dismissing this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; see
also Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep't, 205 F. App'x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (“The court may dismiss
an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”) (citing
Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)); see also Bonner v. City of
Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (explaining the Eleventh Circuit has adopted as
binding precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered before October 1, 1981).
Case 5:25-cv-00503-MTT Document 53 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 7

-3-
2. 	Basis for Jurisdiction
In this section, Plaintiffs shall identify every basis supporting the Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction in the case.2 The Court may have subject matter jurisdiction from
several sources, and the Court may have subject matter jurisdiction over some claims
but not others. Most commonly, the Court attains subject matter jurisdiction through 28
U.S.C. § 1332, “diversity jurisdiction,” or through 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “federal question
jurisdiction.”
a. 	Diversity Jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332
If Plaintiffs allege the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiffs
shall state this is a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction and include allegations concerning
the amount in controversy and citizenship of the parties.
Amount in Controversy
Plaintiffs shall allege the amount in controversy exceeds “$75,000, exclusive of
interest and costs” and explain the factual and legal basis for asserting the claim
exceeds that amount. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Citizenship of the Parties
Plaintiffs shall list the state citizenship of each party.
For all individual parties, including Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs shall allege each
individual’s state of citizenship. Plaintiffs shall identify the state 1) in which the person
resides and 2) in which the person intends to remain indefinitely. See McCormick v.
2 The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to transfer this case back to the Northern District of Illinois. ECF 42.
Plaintiffs argue if the Court is concerned about subject matter jurisdiction, the Court should transfer this
case back to the Northern District of Illinois. Id. However, if the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it
must dismiss this case, not transfer it to another federal district court. See Travaglio v. Am. Exp. Co., 735
F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 2013) (explaining without factual allegations showing federal subject matter
jurisdiction exists over a case, “district courts are constitutionally obligated to dismiss the action altogether
if the plaintiff does not cure the deficiency”).
Case 5:25-cv-00503-MTT Document 53 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 7

-4-
Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257–58 (11th Cir. 2002) (explaining, “[a] person’s domicile is
the place of his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to
which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom.” (citation
modified)).
For all corporate parties, Plaintiffs shall allege the corporation’s citizenship by
identifying the state(s) in which 1) it is incorporated and 2) it has its principal place of
business. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c).
If any plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant, the Court does not
have diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
b. Federal Question Jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331
The Court has federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. If Plaintiffs allege
the Court has federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiffs shall state this is a basis for the
Court’s jurisdiction and list the cause(s) of action that Plaintiffs assert arise under
federal law.
3. 	Statement of Facts
In this section, Plaintiffs shall state, in numbered paragraphs, all facts pertinent to
Plaintiffs’ claim(s).
4. 	Statement of Claims
In this section, Plaintiffs shall state each claim for recovery. Each claim shall be
stated under a separate heading.
Case 5:25-cv-00503-MTT Document 53 Filed 02/10/26 Page 4 of 7

-5-
a. 	Headings.
Each heading shall be labeled and numbered as a “count.” Headings shall
identify what the claim is and against whom it is asserted.3
Example: Count I, Negligence Claim Against Defendant John Smith
b. Basis for the Claim
Under each heading, Plaintiffs shall cite the appropriate statutory or constitutional
authority for bringing the claim and state the factual basis for their claim. Plaintiffs must
provide enough facts to plausibly allege that each defendant’s actions or omissions
resulted in the violation of their rights under a specific law.
The Court recommends Plaintiffs list numbered responses to the following
questions:
(1) What did each defendant do (or not do) to violate their rights?
(2) When did the action(s) occur?
(3) How were the Plaintiffs injured as a result of the defendant’s actions?
B. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Obligations
The Court informs Plaintiffs of their obligations under Rule 11 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly Rule 11(b), which governs Plaintiffs’
representations to the Court.
By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—
whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or
unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge,
information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
circumstances:
3 Plaintiffs must link any claims they make to a named defendant. If Plaintiffs fail to link a named
defendant to a claim, the claim will be dismissed; if Plaintiffs make no allegations in the body of their
complaint against a named defendant, that defendant will be removed from the action.
Case 5:25-cv-00503-MTT Document 53 Filed 02/10/26 Page 5 of 7

-6-
(1) 	it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass,
cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) 	the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by
existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or
reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) 	the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so
identified, 	will 	likely 	have 	evidentiary 	support 	after 	a 	reasonable
opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) 	the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or,
if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of
information.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).
C. Artificial Intelligence
Finally, the Court has seen a marked increase in the use of artificial intelligence
(“AI”) by unrepresented parties, who may not understand fully their pleading obligations.
To assist Plaintiffs in meeting their pleading obligations, the Court ORDERS the
following:
In all pleadings, including Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, Plaintiffs shall
include a signed statement fully disclosing the use of AI to assist in the
preparation of and drafting of the pleading. The statement shall also certify that
Plaintiffs have verified the accuracy of all facts and all legal authorities cited in
the pleading. Failure to comply with this paragraph shall result in sanctions,
including, if appropriate, dismissal of this lawsuit.
II. 	CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their second amended complaint (ECF 51) is
DENIED.
Case 5:25-cv-00503-MTT Document 53 Filed 02/10/26 Page 6 of 7

-7-
Plaintiffs are ORDERED to, consistent with these instructions, amend their
second amended complaint no later than March 3, 2026.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF 45), which is based entirely on its contention
that Plaintiffs failed to submit to examination under oath, is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiffs’ motion to transfer this case back to the Northern District of Illinois (ECF
42) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 10th day of February, 2026.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 5:25-cv-00503-MTT Document 53 Filed 02/10/26 Page 7 of 7