1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 LEAGUE OF AMERICAN Case No. 22-cv-07155-JSC

AUTOCHTHORN HEIR TRIBAL

6 NATION, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

7 Plaintiffs, DISMISS 8 v. Re: Dkt. No. 21

9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiffs filed suit against several defendants including the United States of America, 12 Xavier Becerra, Pete Buttigieg, Gavin Newsom, George Gascon, Jay Bray, Nationstar Mortgage 13 LLC, and others. Bray and Nationstar Mortgage move to dismiss. Plaintiffs did not file an 14 opposition. Mail sent to Plaintiffs’ listed address returned as undeliverable. After carefully 15 considering the arguments and briefing submitted, the Court concludes that oral argument is 16 unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court 17 grants Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint subject to the restrictions below. 18 DISCUSSION 19 Plaintiffs’ complaint is incomprehensible and fails to state any known legal claim.1 Federal 20 Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 21 pleader is entitled to relief.” Under Rule 8, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement need 22 only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” 23 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). While a complaint need not 24 1 Because the Court grants the motion to dismiss for failure to state a known legal claim, the Court 25 need not address Defendants’ additional arguments in favor of dismissal. (See Dkt. No. 21 at 12- 18.) Defendants’ motion to appear by telephone is DENIED as moot. (Dkt. No. 28.) 26

After the time to respond to the motion to dismiss had passed, Plaintiffs filed a document titled, 27 “Tribal Protection Order Writ of Mandamus/Injunction/Bill of Peace Cease & Desist Copyright 1 provide detailed factual allegations, it is “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his 2 ‘entitle[ment] to relief.’” Bell v. Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations 3 omitted). Plaintiff must do more than assert “labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of 4 the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. Rather, a plaintiff must provide sufficient factual 5 allegations “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 6 Plaintiffs fail to meet that standard here. The Court’s review of the complaint does not 7 identify any factual allegations that state a plausible claim for relief. To state a claim, Plaintiffs 8 must allege the following information in an amended complaint: (1) the actions by each defendant 9 that gave rise to Plaintiffs’ claims; (2) what laws or rights were violated by each defendant’s 10 conduct, and (3) how each plaintiff was harmed. It is not clear from the original complaint what 11 claim or claims Plaintiffs seek to assert. 12 The Court takes judicial notice of the vexatious litigant order issued in Case No. 22-cv- 13 3124-WHO at Dkt. No. 32. In that order, Judge Orrick enjoined Kevin Woodruff, Wanag 14 Tahatan-bey, and the League of American Autochthon Heirs from filing any civil action in this 15 district against Nationstar Mortgage, LLC related to property at 2013 Mount Hamilton Dr., 16 Antioch CA 94531 without first obtaining certification from the general duty judge that the 17 complaint is comprehensible and not facially frivolous. While the Complaint in this matter does 18 not facially refer to the Antioch property, Plaintiffs did attach a state court action regarding the 19 Antioch property as an exhibit. Plaintiffs are warned that any amended complaint must abide by 20 Judge Orrick’s order. A violation of that order will be subject to automatic dismissal and may 21 result in monetary sanctions or contempt of court proceedings. 22 CONCLUSION 23 Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint 24 on or before February 17, 2023. Plaintiffs are warned that a failure to amend the complaint by that 25 date may result in dismissal of their complaint without further notice. The hearing scheduled for 26 January 26, 2023 is vacated. 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 Dated: January 23, 2023 2 ne

JAQQUELINE SCOTT CORLE,

3 United States District Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28