Worthing Alves v. Internet Truckstop Payments, LLC et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
SANDRA WORTHING ALVES, ) CASE NO. 1: 26 CV 150
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
)
v. )
) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
) AND ORDER
INTERNET TRUCKSTOP )
PAYMENTS, LLC, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
Background
Pro se Plaintiff Sandra Worthing Alves initiated this case on December 10, 2025, by
filing a 30-page “Super Complaint” against eleven defendants in the Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas along with a motion for an emergency ex parte temporary restraining order
(TRO). Sandra Worthing Alvez v. Internet Truckstop Payments LLC, et al., Case No. 25 CV 12
9498. The Court of Common Pleas denied her motion for a TRO. On December 17, 2025,
Plaintiff filed a 243-page First Amended Complaint in the case against fifteen named
defendants, apparently all connected in some way to the trucking industry, and over 29,000 John
Doe “Brokers” and “Factoring Partners.” (Doc. No. 1-2.)
On January 14, 2026, without obtaining leave of court, Plaintiff filed a 522-page Second
Amended Complaint in state court (Doc. No. 1-3), and filed another motion for a TRO two days
later.
Case: 1:26-cv-00150-DAP Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/10/26 1 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

Defendant C.H. Robinson removed the case to federal court on January 20, 2026, on the
basis of federal claims asserted by Plaintiff (including under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, the Hobbs Act, the Sherman Act, and federal criminal laws). (Doc.
No. 1.)
The parties have now filed various motions in federal court (including motions by
Plaintiff “to Anchor Adopt and Incorporate the State Court Record” and for a TRO, and motions
by various Defendants to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and/or strike her Second
Amended Complaint).
Standard of Review and Discussion
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pleading must contain a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Each
allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Additionally, a
complaint’s allegations must also be made “in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as
practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).
Neither Plaintiff's 243-page First Amended Complaint, nor her 522-page Second
Amended Complaint filed without leave of court, is short and plain or set forth in numbered
paragraphs limited to a single set of circumstances. Instead, her pleadings are unwieldy and
indecipherable. It is impossible for the Court (or Defendants) to parse Plaintiff’s hundreds of
pages of pleadings to ascertain her allegations and legal claims. Plaintiff's pro se status does not
-2-
Case: 1:26-cv-00150-DAP Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/10/26 2 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

relieve her of the requirement of complying with federal pleading rules. See Erwin v. Edwards,
22 F. App’x 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and her Second Amended Complaint
even to the extent it could be allowed, warrant dismissal for violation of federal pleading
requirements. See, e.g., Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047,
1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing cases and holding that district courts act within their discretion in
dismissing complaints under Rule 8 that are “needlessly long,” “highly repetitious, confusing, or
consist of “incomprehensible rambling”).
Furthermore, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction have a duty to police the
boundaries of their jurisdiction in every case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). “A district court
may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations of [the] complaint
are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to
discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff’s present pleadings
are so incomprehensible that they do not provide a basis to establish this Court’s subject-matter
jurisdiction over viable federal claim in the case and warrant dismissal pursuant to Apple v.
Glenn.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s First Amended and Second Amended Complaints are dismissed
for failure to comply with federal pleadings requirements and pursuant to Apple v. Glenn.
Should Plaintiff wish to proceed with her federal claims, she must file and serve upon all named
Defendants a new, Amended Complaint in the case within 30 days of the date of this Order that
-3-
Case: 1:26-cv-00150-DAP Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/10/26 3 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

is no more than 40 pages in length and that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(including Rules 8, 10, and 12.) Plaintiff is notified that her case may be dismissed without
further notice if she fails to do so.
All pending motions (directed to Plaintiff’s First and Second Amended Complaints) are
hereby denied as moot. Defendants may answer or respond to any new, Amended Complaint
Plaintiff files in the case in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court
further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision would be
frivolous and could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DAN AARON POLSTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
2/10/2026
Case: 1:26-cv-00150-DAP Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/10/26 4 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>