Clark v. Oakland Police Department

Background

Loureece Stone Clark, who represented himself, sued the Oakland Police Department, Mauricio Torres, Jessica Marr, and Christopher Buckhout. The complaint referred to alleged violations of the Supremacy Clause and Takings Clause, possible issues involving court proceedings and a Wells Fargo Bank account, breach of contract, and 8 U.S.C. § 2333, which permits victims of international terrorism to sue for damages. The filing also sought $1.6 million and included documents such as fee schedules, trust-related papers, and materials concerning a bank account.

The court had granted Clark permission to proceed without paying the filing fees. The court noted, however, that the complaint listed Clark and entities associated with him, while Lionel Eugene Tanner Jr. appeared as a plaintiff only in a separate financial affidavit. Tanner’s affidavit listed a pension, rental income, a bank balance, and a home with an estimated market value of $980,000. The court therefore treated Tanner’s status as a plaintiff as unresolved.

Screening and Legal Analysis

Because the case was filed by someone proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint before directing the U.S. Marshal to serve the defendants. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court applied the same basic pleading standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: the complaint must give enough factual information to make a claim plausible, rather than relying on labels or conclusions.

The court concluded that the complaint did not state a legally recognizable claim or provide facts supporting one. It said the allegations did not obviously establish a Takings Clause or Supremacy Clause violation. Although Clark cited 8 U.S.C. § 2333, the complaint contained no facts supporting a claim under that statute. The court also said that state-law claims could not proceed in federal court on the stated facts because the plaintiffs and defendants were citizens of California, and the alleged facts did not support a breach-of-contract claim.

The court emphasized that Clark did not need to explain the law in detail, but he did need to explain what happened, who did it, and why he believed he was entitled to relief. If Tanner was also a plaintiff, he would need to provide that information as well.

Order

The court did not dismiss the case at this stage. It ordered the plaintiffs to file a supplement to the existing filing by January 13, 2025, rather than submitting a new complaint. The supplement had to clarify whether Tanner was a plaintiff and, if so, whether the real-estate asset was unencumbered and actually available to him. Alternatively, Tanner could pay the $405 filing fee.

The supplement also had to provide facts identifying what happened, who was responsible, and what relief the plaintiffs wanted. The court said the plaintiffs could instead file a one-page statement dismissing the case without prejudice, which would allow them to pursue any viable state-law claims in state court. The court warned that failure to provide the required information could result in a recommendation that the case be dismissed. Judge Laurel Beeler did not direct service on the defendants.