League of American Autochthorn Heir Tribal Nation v. United States of America

Background

The plaintiffs sued several defendants, including the United States of America, Xavier Becerra, Pete Buttigieg, Gavin Newsom, George Gascon, Jay Bray, Nationstar Mortgage LLC, and others. Bray and Nationstar moved to dismiss. The plaintiffs did not file an opposition, and mail sent to their listed address was returned as undeliverable.

After the response period had passed, the plaintiffs filed a document titled “Tribal Protection Order Writ of Mandamus/Injunction/Bill of Peace Cease & Desist Copyright.” The court did not rely on that filing to identify a viable claim. The court also took judicial notice of a vexatious-litigant order in Case No. 22-cv-3124-WHO. That order barred Kevin Woodruff, Wanag Tahatan-bey, and the League of American Autochthon Heirs from filing a civil action in the Northern District of California against Nationstar Mortgage related to the property at 2013 Mount Hamilton Dr., Antioch, California, without first obtaining certification that the complaint was comprehensible and not facially frivolous.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court explained that a complaint must give defendants fair notice of the claim and its grounds. It also cited the rule that labels, conclusions, and a formulaic statement of legal elements are insufficient; the alleged facts must make a claim for relief plausible.

The court concluded that the complaint did not meet this standard. Its review did not identify factual allegations stating a plausible claim for relief, and it was unclear what claims the plaintiffs sought to assert. The court therefore said an amended complaint must identify, for each defendant, the conduct giving rise to the claims, the laws or rights allegedly violated, and the harm suffered by each plaintiff. Because the court dismissed for failure to state a known legal claim, it did not address the defendants’ additional arguments for dismissal.

Ruling

Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint on or before February 17, 2023. Any amended complaint had to comply with the earlier vexatious-litigant order; the court warned that violating that order could lead to automatic dismissal, monetary sanctions, or contempt proceedings. The court warned that failure to amend by the deadline might result in dismissal without further notice. It also denied as moot the defendants’ motion to appear by telephone and vacated the January 26, 2023 hearing.