Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05500/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05500-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil 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 

THOMAS DAVID LANGENDERFER,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVE TURNER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-05500-WHO (PR) 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND;

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff Thomas Langenderfer filed this federal civil rights complaint filed under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is incomprehensible. The Court cannot discern his legal 

theories or what relief he seeks. Accordingly, after a review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), 

the Court DISMISSES the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint on or before 

May 9, 2016. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 

Case 3:15-cv-05500-WHO Document 13 Filed 03/30/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 

from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 

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 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 

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 

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 

(9th Cir. 1994). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 

essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States 

was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff’s complaint is handwritten and largely illegible. (Dkt. No. 1.) The many 

exhibits and letters he filed subsequently do not clear up matters. (Dkt. Nos. 5-11.) I can 

read phrases that refer to Indian treaties, the Mendocino Indian Reserve, federal land 

management, various government agencies and private corporations, land tax, medical 

marijuana, and Langenderfer’s incarceration. But I cannot decipher his allegations well 

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 

Government Fort Bragg – Public ZA, Public California.” On the second page of the 

complaint, however, he does not list those entities, but instead names Dave Turner, the 

mayor of Fort Bragg, and Edmund Brown, the governor of California, as defendants. He 

also does not state with any clarity how any of these actors violated his constitutional 

rights. 

Case 3:15-cv-05500-WHO Document 13 Filed 03/30/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

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 

complaint on or before May 9, 2016. The new complaint must include the caption and 

civil case number used in this order (15-5500 WHO (PR)) and the words FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely 

replaces the previous complaints, Langenderfer must include in his first amended 

complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. 

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 

accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action without further notice. 

It is Langenderfer’s responsibility to prosecute this case. He must keep the Court 

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice 

of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask 

for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this 

action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

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

Case 3:15-cv-05500-WHO Document 13 Filed 03/30/16 Page 3 of 3