Lundahl et al v. Dunn et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiffs shall file a second amended complaint no later than July 14, 2016. Should Plaintiffs fail to do so, this action will be dismissed without further notice. The clerk of court is directed to set a case management deadline using the following text: July 14, 2016: check for second amended complaint. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy e-mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
LOGAN LUNDAHL, and HOLLI
TELFORD,
Plaintiffs,
V.
STEPHEN DUNN, DUSTIN SMITH,
JEFF SEMRAD, DIXIE HUBBARD,
JAIME DE ANDA, ONEIDA
COUNTY, US BANK, LAW
OFFICES OF MERRILL AND
MERRILL, KIMBERLEY JOHNSON,
DETECTIVE SCHWARTZ, DOUG
WILLIAMS, DAVID NYE, CRAIG
CHRISTENSEN, FIRST AMERICAN
TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, B
J BROWN, SHARON HESS, DOES 110, KEY BANK, LON COLTON, and
KENT HIGGINS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:15CV3133

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Plaintiffs instituted this action on November 10, 2015. (Filing No. 1.) One
week later, on November 17, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a “Verified First Amended
Complaint.” (Filing No. 6.) For the reasons that follow, the court will require
Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint, or face dismissal of this action.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs’ Verified First Amended Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) is
extremely long and almost impossible to decipher. The Amended Complaint is 59
pages long and incorporates 189 pages of exhibits. (Filing No. 6.) While far from

clear, the Amended Complaint appears to assert claims under the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
(“CFAA”), the Fair Housing Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiffs
also purport to allege various state law claims. The Amended Complaint is rambling
and contains various allegations which appear to relate to distinct events. However,
the crux of the Amended Complaint appears to be that Defendants allegedly interfered
with the administration of the “Telford-Lundahl Trust,” as well as other property
interests purportedly held by Plaintiffs.
The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, as well as the
accompanying exhibits, and finds that the Amended Complaint fails to comply with
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires that every complaint
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief” and that “each allegation . . . be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8. A complaint must state enough to “give the defendant fair notice of what the .
. . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93
(2007) (quotation omitted). Although a pro se plaintiff’s allegations should be
liberally construed, pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984) (“[P]ro se litigants are
not excused from failing to comply with substantive and procedural law”).
The Amended Complaint is so long and convoluted that the court cannot
determine with any certainty the legal and factual basis for Plaintiffs’ claims.
Additionally, the court questions whether the Amended Complaint even attempts to
assert legitimate claims. Plaintiff Holli Telford1 has a lengthy history of filing

Plaintiff Holli Telford has evidently used multiple aliases in pervious suits,
including “Holli Lundahl.” See Lundahl v. Nar Inc., 434 F. Supp.2d 855, 860 n.2
(D. Idaho May 24, 2006) (“Plaintiff has employed numerous aliases in her past
litigation including, but not limited to, H.M. Telford, M.H. Telford, Marti Telford,
Holli Lundahl, H. Lundahl, H.T. Lundahl, Marti Lundahl, and Holly Mattie
Telford”). Holli Telford, using the alias “Holli Lundahl,” currently has another
case pending in this court. See Lundahl v. Hoffman, 4:16-cv-3000 (D. Neb. 2016).
1

2

frivolous actions in federal courts. In fact, multiple other courts, including the United
States Supreme Court, have placed filing restrictions on Ms. Telford. See Lundahl v.
Eli Lilly & Co., 544 U.S. 997 (2005) (“As petitioner has repeatedly abused this
Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal
matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee . . . is paid”); Lundahl v. Nar Inc., 434
F. Supp.2d 855 (D. Idaho 2006) (enjoining Plaintiff from instituting any suit in that
court without first obtaining leave of court because she had filed duplicative and
frivolous suits); Lundahl v. Hawkins, SA-09-CA-0588-XR, 2009 WL 3617518 (W.D.
Tex. Oct. 27, 2009) (dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous and ordering that
she be enjoined from filing any civil suit in Texas federal courts against certain
defendants without first obtaining leave of court); Lundahl v. Eli Lilly and Co. No. 13CV-241-SWS, 2014 WL 347157 (D. Wyo. Jan. 30, 2014) (noting Plaintiff’s extensive
history of abusive litigation and enjoining Plaintiff and all of her aliases from
proceeding as a plaintiff in any civil matter in the District of Wyoming unless she is
represented by counsel or obtains permission to proceed pro se).
Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, the court will grant Plaintiffs
leave to file a second amended complaint. Should Plaintiffs fail to file a second
amended complaint by the deadline set by the court, this action will be dismissed
without further notice.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a second amended complaint no later
than July 14, 2016. Should Plaintiffs fail to do so, this action will be dismissed
without further notice. The clerk of court is directed to set a case management
deadline using the following text: July 14, 2016: check for second amended
complaint.
DATED this 14th day of June, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge
3