Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00152/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00152-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 25:640 Indian Tribal Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MENDOCINO FEDERAL INDIAN 

RESERVE and CHIEF JUSTICE 

LANGENDERFOR

Plaintiffs,

v.

PUBLIC STATE CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00152-WHO 

ORDER DISMISSING IFP COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. No. 11

On March 19, 2015, I granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis but 

dismissed his complaint with leave to amend under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2) because it was 

impossible to discern any of the essential details of the events that triggered his lawsuit or the legal 

theories under which he sought relief. Dkt. No. 10. 

Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint which is handwritten and largely illegible. Dkt. 

No. 11. I can read phrases that refer to medical marijuana, wind, water, bio-fuel, Indian treaties, 

the Mendocino Indian Reserve, and various government agencies’ management of property in 

Mendocino, but I cannot decipher it well enough to discern his legal theories or the relief he seeks. 

Accordingly, the amended complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and is 

DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (court shall dismiss IFP complaint if it is “(i) is 

frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.”). 

Plaintiff may have an opportunity to file a second amended complaint. He shall do so by 

July 23, 2015. I encourage him to type his second amended complaint or to write it neatly, in 

print, double-spaced on the page, so that I can read all of it. If the second amended complaint is 

also unintelligible, I will have to dismiss this lawsuit with prejudice. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00152-WHO Document 12 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 1