Langenderfer v. Roger A. Miller

Background

Pro se Plaintiff Geronimo Thomas Langenderfer sued Thomas J. Madden, Nicholas Lumbreras, and Roger A. Miller, seeking approximately $8 million for breach of contract. The opinion’s caption lists the plaintiff as Thomas Langenderfer. The plaintiff’s underlying dispute concerned a cannabis contract.

The court previously granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The court directed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint clearly explaining the federal question raised by his claim and warned that, if he could not do so, the case would be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. The plaintiff filed an untimely amended complaint, and the defendants filed the second motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1).

Jurisdictional analysis

The plaintiff asserted that the court had federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal-question jurisdiction generally requires a federal issue to appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint. A state-law claim can sometimes support federal jurisdiction if it necessarily raises a federal issue that is actually disputed, substantial, and capable of resolution in federal court without upsetting the balance between federal and state judicial responsibilities.

The court held that the amended complaint still did not identify a federal question with sufficient specificity. The plaintiff referred to himself as a “federal contractor” and described the arrangement as a “government contract” or “Presidential Contract,” but the court found those unsupported assertions insufficient. Documents mentioning federal licenses did not explain why resolving the breach-of-contract claim would raise a substantial federal issue or require consideration of federal law.

The court also rejected the suggestion that federal jurisdiction existed because the plaintiff was affiliated with a tribal government. It explained that federal-question jurisdiction does not exist simply because an Indian tribe or individual is a party, and concluded that the dispute appeared to require consideration of state law rather than resolution of a federal issue. The plaintiff therefore failed again to meet his burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed the case against the defendants without leave to amend and without prejudice to refiling in state court. The clerk was directed to close the case. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. issued the order.