MANSON v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
LEONARDO MANSON, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-293 (MTT)
)
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
)
ORDER
Before the Court is the Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Leonardo
Manson’s complaint (ECF 1-2) for failure to state a claim. ECF 5. Mr. Manson is
proceeding pro se, and, as explained below, the Court will allow Mr. Manson the
opportunity to file an amended complaint no later than December 31, 2025.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a pleading contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2). To avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when “the court [can] draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
“Factual allegations that are ‘merely consistent with a defendant’s liability’ fall short of
being facially plausible.” Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir.
2012) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
Case 5:25-cv-00293-MTT Document 10 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 4

-2-
At the motion to dismiss stage, “all well-pleaded facts are accepted as true, and
the reasonable inferences therefrom are construed in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” FindWhat Inv. Grp. v. FindWhat.com., 658 F.3d 1282, 1296 (11th Cir. 2011)
(quoting Garfield v. NDC Health Corp., 466 F.3d 1255, 1261 (11th Cir. 2006)). But
“conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions
masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal.” Oxford Asset Mgmt., Ltd. v. Jaharis,
297 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002). The complaint must “give the defendant fair
notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555. Moreover, pleadings by pro se litigants “are held to a less stringent standard
than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Hughes
v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003) (citation modified). Even so, “the district
court does not have license to rewrite a deficient pleading.” Osahar v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
297 F. App’x 863, 864 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Where there are dispositive
issues of law, a court may dismiss a claim regardless of the alleged facts. Patel v.
Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 904 F.3d 1314, 1321 (11th Cir. 2018).
Mr. Manson’s complaint contains a single paragraph description of his claims.
ECF 1-2 at 3. It states:
There is an account on my personal credit report that was opened
fraudulently by dillards wells fargo that was actually removed before due to
this matter I've disputed the account multiple times requesting a block per
fcra 605 b with police report ftc report and other documents. l'm entitled to
this a[]mount for well over 250 hours spent over the past years to do
documentation gather police reports ftc reports I've been denied credit on
multiple occasions gas money to go to these locations ie post offices
postage and fcra violations.
Id.
Construing Mr. Manson’s complaint liberally, it cannot be said to state a claim for
relief. The complaint does not give the Defendant fair notice of what Mr. Manson’s
Case 5:25-cv-00293-MTT Document 10 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 4

-3-
claims are or the full grounds upon which they rest. Perhaps recognizing the
deficiencies in his complaint, Mr. Manson’s late response brief, which perhaps was
drafted with the assistance of artificial intelligence, raises new claims not raised in his
complaint.1 ECF 7 at 1–2. As the Defendant notes, new claims cannot be raised for the
first time in a response brief. See Gilmour v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 382 F.3d 1312,
1315 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (explaining “[a] plaintiff may not amend her complaint
through argument in a brief opposing summary judgment”); Gladney v. Consumers
Credit Union, No. 13-13959, 2024 WL 2797914 at*4 (11th Cir. May 31, 2024) (per
curiam) (stating that the plaintiff “could not cure the deficiencies in his amended
complaint by asserting additional facts in his response to [Defendant’s] motion to
dismiss”).
However, because of Mr. Manson's pro se status and the possibility that a
dismissal, even without prejudice, might permanently bar his claims, the Court will allow
Mr. Manson an opportunity to file an amended complaint no later than December 31,
2025. If an amended complaint is filed, Mr. Manson will expressly state that he has
verified the accuracy of all facts alleged and all legal authorities cited. If the amended
complaint is drafted with the aid of artificial intelligence, Mr. Manson shall fully disclose
the circumstances surrounding his use of artificial intelligence.
In addition, Mr. Manson is instructed to include all facts that he wishes to make a
part of these proceedings and cite the appropriate legal authority for bringing his claims.
Mr. Manson must provide enough facts to plausibly demonstrate that the Defendant’s
1 Mr. Manson does not offer an explanation for his untimeliness, so the Court need not consider Mr.
Manson’s response brief at all. See Allen v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, No. 5:10-CV-181-MTT, 2010
WL 3950980, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 7, 2010) (striking a pro se litigant’s response brief for untimeliness).
Case 5:25-cv-00293-MTT Document 10 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3 of 4

-4-
actions or omissions resulted in the violation of his rights under a specific law. It is also
recommended that, when drafting his “statement of claims,” Mr. Manson list numbered
responses to the following questions:
(1) What did the Defendant do (or not do) to violate his rights?
(2) When did the action occur?
(3) How was Mr. Manson injured as a result of the Defendant’s actions?
The amended complaint will take the place of and supersede Mr. Manson’s
original complaint. See Hoefling v. City of Miami, 811 F.3d 1271, 1277 (11th Cir. 2016).
Mr. Manson may not refer to, or incorporate by reference, his previous complaint, and
the Court will not look back to the facts alleged in the original complaint once the
amended complaint is filed. Id. (holding that the filing of an amended pleading renders
the previous pleading a “legal nullity”).2
SO ORDERED, this 12th day of December, 2025.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 The Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF 5) is DENIED as moot.
Case 5:25-cv-00293-MTT Document 10 Filed 12/12/25 Page 4 of 4