# Alexander v. Amtrak

> District Court, District of Columbia · June 1, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11335459

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia
- **Decided:** June 1, 2026
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge Christopher R. Cooper
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11335459

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that threadbare recitals and conclusory statements are insufficient to state a claim

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LIAM ALEXANDER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00836 (UNA)
)
AMTRAK, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint

(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, and Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The

Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP Application, and for the reasons discussed below, it dismisses the

Complaint, and this matter, without prejudice.

Plaintiff provides an address in Albany, New York, but also claims that he is a resident of

the District of Columbia. Compare Compl. at 1, with id. at 3. He sues Amtrak and Amtrak Police.

See id. at 2. The Complaint is vague, at best. Plaintiff broadly alleges that Defendants engaged in

fraud, “breached [an] agreement,” “violated terms and conditions,” and “made false statements to

arrest” him. See id. at 3–4. He also alleges that he has “suffered near fatal medical complications.”

See id. at 4. He demands $50 million in damages. See id.

Federal Rule 8(a) requires complaints to contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the

grounds for the court’s jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79

(2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668–71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that

defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive

answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown
v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Notably, “[a] confused . . . narrative of charges

and conclusions . . . does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8.” Cheeks v. Fort Myer

Constr. Corp., 71 F. Supp. 3d 163, 169 (D.D.C. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted).

The instant Complaint falls squarely within this category. Plaintiff does not cite to any

legal authority, nor does he provide any context or necessary details to support any intended claim;

for example, how, when, or where any of the alleged wrongdoing occurred, or who committed the

alleged wrongdoing, and in what manner it harmed him. As pleaded, Plaintiff has stated only bare

conclusions that fail to provide the Defendants or the Court with adequate notice of a claim. See

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (holding that threadbare recitals and conclusory statements are insufficient

to state a claim); see also id. at 682 (“bare assertions” of a claim are “not entitled to be assumed

true.”).

Accordingly, this matter is dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order accompanies

this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: June 1, 2026 /s/ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11335459. Public record. Not legal advice.