Langenderfer v. Turner

Filing 13

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK. Amended Complaint due by 5/9/2016. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 03/30/2016. the Clerk shall amend the caption of the case to read Thomas David Langenderfer v. Dave Turner, et al. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 THOMAS DAVID LANGENDERFER, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 v. DAVE TURNER, et al., Defendants. 15 Case No. 15-cv-05500-WHO (PR) ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK 16 17 INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiff Thomas Langenderfer filed this federal civil rights complaint filed under 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is incomprehensible. The Court cannot discern his legal 20 theories or what relief he seeks. Accordingly, after a review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), 21 the Court DISMISSES the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint on or before 22 May 9, 2016. 23 24 25 DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 26 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 27 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 28 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 1 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 2 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 3 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 4 5 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 6 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 7 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 8 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 9 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 12 (9th Cir. 1994). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 13 essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States 14 was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 15 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 16 B. Legal Claims 17 Plaintiff’s complaint is handwritten and largely illegible. (Dkt. No. 1.) The many 18 exhibits and letters he filed subsequently do not clear up matters. (Dkt. Nos. 5-11.) I can 19 read phrases that refer to Indian treaties, the Mendocino Indian Reserve, federal land 20 management, various government agencies and private corporations, land tax, medical 21 marijuana, and Langenderfer’s incarceration. But I cannot decipher his allegations well 22 enough to discern his legal theories or the relief he seeks. Also, it is not clear who the defendants are. In the caption, he lists “2.44 2.44 City 23 24 Government Fort Bragg – Public ZA, Public California.” On the second page of the 25 complaint, however, he does not list those entities, but instead names Dave Turner, the 26 mayor of Fort Bragg, and Edmund Brown, the governor of California, as defendants. He 27 also does not state with any clarity how any of these actors violated his constitutional 28 rights. 2 1 2 3 If Langenderfer seeks relief from the fact or duration of his confinement, he should file a petition for writ of habeas corpus, not a suit under section 1983. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended 4 complaint on or before May 9, 2016. The new complaint must include the caption and 5 civil case number used in this order (15-5500 WHO (PR)) and the words FIRST 6 AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely 7 replaces the previous complaints, Langenderfer must include in his first amended 8 complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. 9 See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file an amended complaint in 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action without further notice. 12 It is Langenderfer’s responsibility to prosecute this case. He must keep the Court 13 informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice 14 of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask 15 for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this 16 action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 17 18 19 20 Because there are several defendants, the Clerk shall amend the caption of the case to read “Thomas David Langenderfer v. Dave Turner, et al.” IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 30, 2016 _________________________ WILLIAM H. ORRICK United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?