Secretary of the Treasury et al et al v. United States of America et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Ayowumi Iretemi ex rel. Bobbi Jo 	)
Helgeson et al., 	)
) 	ORDER
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	)
) 	Case No. 1:26-cv-267
United States of America; et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
On August 18, 2026, Ayowumi Iretemi (“Iretemi”) initiated the above-captioned action pro
se and ex rel. or on behalf of Bobbi Jo Helgeson, the Chahta Okla Nanih Foka Homma Trust, and
unnamed others again the United States, the State of North Dakota, the Wells Fargo & Company,
and others with the submission of an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and what the
undersigned construed as a proposed complaint. (Doc. Nos. 1 and 1-1).
As it appeared Iretemi was attempting to proceed on behalf of others and is not an attorney
licensed to practice law in the District of North Dakota, the undersigned issued a report on August
21, 2026, recommending that the Court deny Iretemis’ application to proceed IFP and dismiss the
above-captioned action without prejudice. 	(Doc. No. 2). On August 31, 2026, Iretemi filed an
objection to the undersigned’s report and recommendation in which she clarified that she is not
trying to proceed on behalf of others, that she is Bobbi Jo Helgeson, and that Iretemi is her religious
and Tribal name. (Doc. No. 4). Based on this additional information, the undersigned issued an
order on September 4, 2026, granting Iretemi’s application to proceed IFP, directing the Clerk’s
office to file Iretemi’s complaint, and deeming the report and recommendation moot. (Doc. No. 5).
That same day the Clerk’s office mailed a copy of the report and recommendation to an address in
1
Case 1:26-cv-00267-DLH-CRH Document 9 Filed 10/02/26 Page 1 of 3

Norman, Oklahoma, provided by Iretemi. It also filed the complaint but refrained from serving it
pending further instruction from the Court.
On September 9, 2026, the Clerks office noted the following on the docket: “Iretemi refused
service and returned [the undersigned’s report and recommendation] to the Clerk's Office
unopened.” (Doc. No. 7). On September 29, 2026, Iretemi filed a document captioned:
First Amended Petition and Complaint
Amendment to Party Status, Caption, and Disclosure of Interested Persons and Entities
Notice of Filing
(Doc. No. 8). Therein she rearticulated that she is proceeding solely on her own behalf against the
United States and unnamed others. (Id.). Next, she “removed the Secretary of the Treasury, Chahta
Okla Nanih Foka Homma Trust, and every other person or entity previously identified as a Petitioner
from the Petitioner designation.” (Id.). Finally, she incorporated by reference claims she made in
her original petition and listed persons and entities that she believes may claim to have an interest
the subject property. (Id.).
The document filed by Iretemi on September 9, 2026, was clearly intended to be an amended
complaint given its caption. 	In her amended complaint, Iretemi impermissibly attempts to
incorporate by reference all of the claims (and presumably the basis for this court’s exercise of
jurisdiction) that she asserted in her original complaint. 	See Wilson v. City of Clayton, No.
4:24CV1457 HEA, 2025 WL 1797443, at *2 (E.D. Mo. June 26, 2025) (opining that “any claims
that are not reasserted in an amended complaint are ordinarily deemed abandoned’).
“If a plaintiff amends her complaint, the new pleading ‘supersedes’ the old one: The ‘original
pleading no longer performs any function in the case.’” Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc. v. Wullschleger,
604 U.S. 22, 35, 145 S. Ct. 41, 52, 220 L. Ed. 2d 289 (2025) (quoting 6 C. Wright, A. Miller, & M.
2
Case 1:26-cv-00267-DLH-CRH Document 9 Filed 10/02/26 Page 2 of 3

Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476, pp. 636–637 (3d ed. 2010)). 	Consequently, “an
amended complaint may not incorporate by reference the allegations and claims from a prior
complaint because an amended complaint completely replaces all prior complaints.” Wilson, No.
4:24CV1457 HEA, 2025 WL 1797443, at *2; see also Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig.,
396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005) (“It is well-established that an amended complaint supersedes an
original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal effect”).
The court appreciates that Iretemi is proceeding pro se. Consequently, the court shall afford
Iretemi an opportunity file a second amended complaint that asserts all of the claims. Accordingly,
Iretemi shall have until October 23, 2026, to file a second amended complaint. Her second amended
complaint must include all of the claims and factual allegation she wishes to assert. She may not
incorporate by reference the allegations and claims in the original and first amended complaints
because the second amended complaint will completely replace the prior complaints. See In re
Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 396 F.3d at 928. Any claims for the prior complaints
that are not included in the second amended complaint will be deemed abandoned and will not be
considered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 2nd day of October, 2026.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
3
Case 1:26-cv-00267-DLH-CRH Document 9 Filed 10/02/26 Page 3 of 3