Green v. Amazon Corporation

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LAWANDA GREEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMAZON CORPORATION,
Defendants.
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
Case No.: 2:26-cv-1315-MHH
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On July 27, 2026, pro se plaintiff LaWanda Green filed her complaint in this
matter against Amazon Corporation. (Doc. 1). On August 7, 2026, Ms. Green
amended her complaint. (Doc. 4). The Court issued an order describing deficiencies
in the amended complaint and ordered Ms. Green to file a second amended
complaint to address the issues that the Court identified. (Doc. 7). On August 28,
2026, Ms. Green filed her second amended complaint against Amazon. (Doc. 8).
The Court begins this opinion with the legal standard that governs a district
court’s review of a pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Then, consistent with
that standard, the Court summarizes Ms. Green’s factual allegations in the light most
favorable to her. The Court then considers whether Ms. Green has stated a valid
claim for relief in her complaints.
FILED
2026 Oct-08 AM 09:55
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 2:26-cv-01315-MHH Document 11 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 7

2
***
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(ii), a federal court must dismiss a pro se
action that “is frivolous or malicious” or “fails to state a claim on which relief may
be granted.” When reviewing a pro se complaint pursuant to § 1915, a district court
must hold complaints written by pro se litigants to a less stringent standard than
pleadings drafted by attorneys. Jacob v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC, 40 F.4th 1329,
1334 (11th Cir. 2022). Though a district court must be lenient in its review of a pro
se pleading, a district court “cannot act as de facto counsel or rewrite an otherwise
deficient pleading to sustain an action.” Bilal v. Geo Care, LLC, 981 F.3d 903, 911
(11th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Generally, a district court accepts the factual
allegations in a pro se complaint as true and construes the allegations in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, but a court must not accept unsupported legal
conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The facts a plaintiff
alleges “must allow [the Court] to ‘draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the misconduct alleged.’” Jastram v. NextEra Energy, Inc., 161 F.4th
693, 706 (11th Cir. 2025) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
***
Ms. Green filed this action on July 27, 2026. (Doc. 1). The Clerk of Court
randomly assigned the case to Magistrate Judge Borden. On August 7, 2026, Ms.
Green filed her first amended complaint. (Doc. 4). On August 21, 2026, Judge
Case 2:26-cv-01315-MHH Document 11 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 7

3
Borden dismissed Ms. Green’s amended complaint and instructed her to replead.
(Doc. 7). Judge Borden described the deficiencies in Ms. Green’s amended
complaint and provided guidance for repleading. (Doc. 7).
On August 28, 2026, Ms. Green amended her complaint. (Doc. 8). On
September 16, 2026, Judge Borden entered a reassignment order. (Doc. 9). In the
reassignment order, Judge Borden explained that Ms. Green’s second amended
complaint does not comply with prior court orders and does not cure many of the
deficiencies in her earlier complaints. (Doc. 9). Because Amazon has not appeared
in this case, Judge Borden could not obtain unanimous consent from all parties, so
he directed the Clerk of Court to reassign the case to a district judge to address the
deficiencies in the second amended complaint. The Clerk of Court randomly
assigned the case to the undersigned judicial officer.
In her second amended complaint, Ms. Green has raised claims of
employment discrimination against Amazon. (Doc. 8). Ms. Green alleges that
Amazon violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act of 1967, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. (Doc.
8, pp. 3-4).
Ms. Green is African American; she was born in 1980. (Doc. 8, p. 5). She
states that she experiences anxiety and depression. (Doc. 8, p. 5). She claims that
Amazon discriminated against her based on her race, gender, age, and disability.
Case 2:26-cv-01315-MHH Document 11 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 7

4
(Doc. 8, p. 5). She alleges that Amazon’s discriminatory conduct includes
termination of employment, failure to accommodate her disability, unequal terms
and conditions of employment, and retaliation. (Doc. 8, pp. 4–5). Ms. Green alleges
that she has “faced discrimination and harassment in the hostile work environment
[at] Amazon” and that she was “unlawfully fired as well as denied worker’s
compensation.” (Doc. 8, p. 8). Ms. Green alleges that Amazon has “used their
partnerships to bare [her] intentionally destitute, as well as their contacts, they have
had funds that are legally [hers] denied.” (Doc. 8, p. 8). Ms. Green adds that
Amazon has:
used BCI Technology as well as other technology and . . . their
resources to have me locked out of my patient portal, [G]mail . . . [and]
cell phones which were compromised and I was unable to use despite
paying the bill[.] I was harassed, stalked, and even violated in my
home[;] also reported to government officials as well as medical
malpractice; the vandalism of my home and vehicle also reported as
well; brain to brain / brain to computer interface also scientifically
proven technology manipulation to cause mental breakdown.
(Doc. 8, p. 6).
Ms. Green indicates this is the second case she has filed on these facts:
I filed charges against Amazon Corporation in Nov[ember] 2024 for
discrimination[.] [T]he case was closed due to BCI Technology and
me being locked out of my Gmail account[.] [I]t was reported to
[G]oogle as well as Government officials[.] [I] refiled in March 2025[.]
[T]he case was still ongoing until July 2026 when [I] filed in federal
court myself with the right to sue as well as a retaliation charge.
(Doc. 8, p. 5). Ms. Green seeks $1,000,000.00 in monetary compensation. (Doc. 8,
Case 2:26-cv-01315-MHH Document 11 Filed 10/08/26 Page 4 of 7

5
p. 6).
***
In her second amended complaint, Ms. Green has not alleged sufficient facts
to state a federal cause of action. She has not alleged facts to support her contention
that Amazon discriminated against her in her employment, and she has not cured the
deficiencies that the Court identified in previous orders. (Doc. 8, pp. 4–7). Ms.
Green has not described why Amazon terminated her or how Amazon discriminated
against her based on her personal characteristics. For this reason, Ms. Green’s
employment discrimination claims are undeveloped assertions “devoid of further
factual enhancement” that warrant dismissal. See Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678.
Under Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662 (2009), a plaintiff must allege facts which, if proven, would entitle the
plaintiff to relief. Under Rule 8(a)(2), these allegations must be in the form of “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Under Rule 10(b), a party “must state its claims or defenses
in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of
circumstances . . . . If doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a
separate transaction or occurrence—and each defense other than a denial—must be
stated in a separate count or defense.” FED. R. CIV. P. 10(b). The Eleventh Circuit
has explained that:
Case 2:26-cv-01315-MHH Document 11 Filed 10/08/26 Page 5 of 7

6
Complaints that violate either Rule 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b), or both,
are often disparagingly referred to as “shotgun pleadings.”
….
[W]e have identified four rough types or categories of shotgun
pleadings. The most common type—by a long shot—is a complaint
containing multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of
all preceding counts, causing each successive count to carry all that
came before and the last count to be a combination of the entire
complaint. The next most common type, at least as far as our published
opinions on the subject reflect, is a complaint that does not commit the
mortal sin of re-alleging all preceding counts but is guilty of the venial
sin of being replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not
obviously connected to any particular cause of action. The third type
of shotgun pleading is one that commits the sin of not separating into a
different count each cause of action or claim for relief. Fourth, and
finally, there is the relatively rare sin of asserting multiple claims
against multiple defendants without specifying which of the defendants
are responsible for which acts or omissions, or which of the defendants
the claim is brought against. The unifying characteristic of all types of
shotgun pleadings is that they fail to one degree or another, and in one
way or another, to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims
against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests.
Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320–23 (11th Cir. 2015)
(footnotes omitted). Here, Ms. Green has not provided facts supporting her claims
under “42 U.S.C. § 12210(c),” “Title 18 U.S.C. § 245,” or “Title 18 U.S.C. § 241.”
(Doc. 9, p. 4). Ms. Green has not adequately identified a federal cause of action for
“Hostile Work Environment and Obstruction of Justice.” (Doc. 9, p. 4). Conclusory
and general assertions are insufficient to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Ms. Green may not submit a “shotgun
pleading.”
Case 2:26-cv-01315-MHH Document 11 Filed 10/08/26 Page 6 of 7

7
Ms. Green’s second amended complaint has not cured the deficiencies
identified by Judge Borden in Ms. Green’s first amended complaint. The Court
dismisses Ms. Green’s claims for the reasons stated in Judge Borden’s prior orders.
(Docs. 7, 9).
***
Accordingly, the Court dismisses Ms. Green’s federal claims for failure to
state a claim and for failure to follow court orders. The Clerk of Court shall please
TERM all pending motions and close this case. The Clerk of Court shall please mail
a copy of this order to the mailing address Ms. Green has provided.
DONE and ORDERED this October 8, 2026.
_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-01315-MHH Document 11 Filed 10/08/26 Page 7 of 7