United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division
ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
case is before the court on Defendants Birmingham Jefferson
County Transit Authority (“BJCTA”) and Judy
Nolan's motion to dismiss Plaintiff Adam Carloni's
pro se complaint and amended complaint. (Doc. 13).
court entered a briefing schedule on the motion and ordered
Mr. Carloni to respond to the motion on or before June 1,
2018. In response, Mr. Carloni filed a number of notices.
(Docs. 17, 21, 22, 25). None of the notices specifically
address the Defendants' arguments for dismissal, but the
court considers the motion to dismiss ripe for adjudication
because Mr. Carloni has had adequate time to prepare a
reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS the Defendants'
STANDARD OF REVIEW
to Rule 8(a)(2), 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). Rule
12(b)(6) enables a defendant to move to dismiss a complaint
for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must “state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plausible claim for
relief requires “enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable
expectation that discovery will reveal evidence” to
support the claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. A
complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, but
a complaint must contain “more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555.
resolving a motion to dismiss, the court must “accept
the allegations in the complaint as true and constru[e] them
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”
Miljkovic v. Shafritz & Dinkin, P.A., 791 F.3d
1291, 1297 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting Hill v. White,
321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam)). Although
the court must accept well-pleaded facts as true, the court
is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion
couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555.
as here, a plaintiff proceeds pro se, the court must
liberally construe the complaint. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). “‘[A]
pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must
be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers.'” Id. (quoting
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be
construed so as to do justice.”). Still, the court may
not “serve as de facto counsel for a party, or
. . . rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading” to
“sustain an action.” Campbell v. Air Jamaica
Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal
quotations and citations omitted). In other words,
“[o]nce a pro se litigant is in court, [s]he
is subject to the relevant laws and rules of court, including
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Smith v.
Fla. Dept. of Corr., 369 F. App'x. 36, 38 (11th Cir.
2010) (citing Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837
(11th Cir. 1989)).
case arises out of an incident that took place on June 30,
2017 at the central Max Transit station in Birmingham,
Alabama. According to his original complaint, Mr. Carloni got
off bus 280 at 12:24 p.m. and sat down inside the central
station. Mr. Carloni had in his possession a bag from Walmart
where he had purchased a pair of new shorts and a bag of
potato chips. Mr. Carloni opened his phone and computer to
make arrangements for where he would travel next. A lady
sitting across from Mr. Carloni “triggered a fear of an
erotic encounter.” Mr. Carloni “felt compelled to
leave, ” without making sure that he had all of his
belongings with him. (Doc. 1-1, p. 4).
he left the bus station, Mr. Carloni tried to buy a soda, but
he realized that his wallet was missing. Mr. Carloni
remembers having his wallet at Walmart. He believes that he
left his wallet either on the bus or inside the bus station.
(Doc. 1-1, p. 4). Mr. Carloni suspects that the woman he sat
beside inside the bus station stole his wallet after he left
the station. (Doc. 1-1, p. 5). Mr. Carloni paid $5.00 for the
wallet, and it contained his driver's license; two debit
cards; various photographs; and a Nevada EBT card. (Doc. 1-1,
Carloni reported the stolen wallet to a BJCTA employee who
did not immediately call the bus that Mr. Carloni rode. The
employee asked Mr. Carloni to wait until 2:30 p.m. for the
bus to return to the station so that Mr. Carloni could ask
the driver if he had seen the wallet and search the bus for
the wallet. (Doc. 1-1, p. 5).
employees, including Judy Nolan, told Mr. Carloni that there
are surveillance cameras inside the bus station. According to
Mr. Carloni, Ms. Nolan explained that only IT employees can
access the room where the surveillance video is stored, and
the IT employees would not be back at work until after July
4, 2017. Even then, if video existed, only Ms. Nolan, BJCTA
security, and police officers could watch the video. (Doc.
1-1, p. 4).
Carloni returned to the bus station on July 5, 2017. He asked
a BJCTA employee if he could see the video. The employee told
Mr. Carloni that he would need a police report and that Ms.
Nolan would be in at 7:30 a.m. the next morning. Mr. Carloni
told another BJCTA employee that his wallet was stolen. That
employee referred Mr. Carloni to Ms. Nolan. Mr. Carloni asked
that employee if the employee would identify the cameras. The
employee pointed to what Mr. Carloni believes is a smoke
detector. The employee then told Mr. Carloni that BJCTA has
cameras “pointed everywhere” and that there are
cameras on all buses. Mr. Carloni asked a police officer at
the bus station whether the police officer had access to the
surveillance video. The police officer told Mr. Carloni that
he (the police officer) did not have access to the video and
that BJCTA hired its own private police officers. (Doc. 1-1,
5, 2017, Mr. Carloni completed a portion of a Title VI
complaint form against the BJCTA. (Doc. 1-1, pp. 10-11). Mr.
Carloni provided his contact information, but he did not
complete the section of the form that asked him to provide
details about alleged discrimination. (See Doc. 1-1,
amended complaint, Mr. Carloni complains that he was subject
to indecent exposure at the bus station. (Doc. 9, p. 3). He
believes that the IT staff to whom Ms. Nolan referred may not
be “actual persons.” (Doc. 9, p. 4). Mr. Carloni
contends that before he lost his wallet on June 30, 2017, a
police officer threatened to have him arrested for
trespassing and asked him to leave the bus station. (Doc. 9,
p. 4). The same police officer “was too loving to other
people as if they were best friends.” (Doc. 9, p. 5).
Carloni alleges that he “was having a hard time with
the people at Walmart while [he] was in Alabama”
because “they accused [him] of stealing and insist[ed]
on searching [him] and they are not correct.” (Doc. 9,
p. 4). According to Mr. Carloni, “[p]eople were hacking
into [his] computer around that time.” (Doc. 9, p. 4).
Now, Mr. Carloni is afraid to get on the internet because he
believes that “people are going to hack in.”
(Doc. 9, p. 4). Mr. Carloni alleges that “people were
and still are spying on [him] on his computer” which
Mr. Carloni calls a “serious crime.” (Doc. 9, p.
4). Mr. Carloni states that “[i]t seemed like people at
the bus station knew the password for [his] computer.”
(Doc. 9, p. 5). According to Mr. Carloni, his “wallet
was stolen because someone targeted [him] because [he] has a
computer.” (Doc. 9, p. 5).
Carloni alleges that he “keep[s] running because it is
a pattern now. People break into my things, I have to leave
the city, I get picked up by another rescue mission, they
break into my things, I have to leave. Eventually I am going
to run out of places or tragedy is going to happen.”
After Mr. Carloni left Alabama, he spent four months in North
Carolina where he slept outside. When he was in Alabama, he
slept outside every night except for two nights because
“shelters insist on going into [his] things.” Mr.
Carloni alleges that he has not been to a shelter that
follows the Bill of Rights. (Doc. 9, p. 6).
Carloni believes that “someone is broadcasting [his]
private files which contain secrets without [his]
consent.” Mr. Carloni suspects that “people have
been passing along [his] password to other people behind
[his] back exposing that which [he] wish[es] to keep
private.” According to Mr. Carloni, “[s]pies are
getting so bad they want to know about the people who [he]
lived with growing up and called family.” (Doc. 9, p.
Carloni believes that BJCTA employees “should have let
[him] see the video if someone stole [his] wallet for [his]
safety” because “now everyone knows my identity
and secrets.” (Doc. 9, p. 6).
on the Defendants' refusal to allow him to view video
surveillance footage from the bus station, Mr. Carloni
asserts claims against the BJCTA and Ms. Nolan under Article
I Section 2, Article I Section 3, Article 1 Section 4,
Article 2 Section 1, Article 3 Section 1, Article 3 Section
2, Article 4 Section 2, and Article 4 Section 4 of the
Constitution of the United States; the Eighth, Sixteenth,
Seventeenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Third, and Twenty-Sixth