Clark v. Bay City Auto

Background

Loureece Stone Clark, identified as an inmate in Marin County Jail, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous car dealerships, the Secretary of the California Department of Motor Vehicles, and the Chief Financial Officer of Wells Fargo Bank.

Clark’s statement of claim referred to common-law rights, breach of contract, mutilation of currency, tax evasion by licensed dealers, trespass, double dipping, racketeering, privacy invasion, and due process. The complaint also referred to an administrative commercial agreement and stated that the claims were barred or supported by concepts including res judicata and stare decisis.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the prisoner-complaint screening requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under that statute, the court must identify legally viable claims or dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief, and the plausibility standard described in Twombly and Iqbal.

The court held that Clark’s allegations were insufficient because they stated conclusions and labels without supporting facts. Clark did not explain the contracts, how they were breached, or which defendants breached them. Clark also did not allege facts underlying the racketeering, tax-evasion, double-dipping, or privacy-invasion allegations. The court stated that Clark must allege actions or omissions by each defendant showing how that defendant individually caused a violation of Clark’s rights.

The court further explained that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law—that is, using governmental authority or participating in conduct sufficiently connected to the state. The court stated that all but the DMV Secretary appeared to be private entities or individuals and that Clark had not alleged facts showing that the private defendants acted as state actors.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the complaint WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Clark was ordered to file an amended complaint by October 4, 2022, using the required caption and case number and placing the words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. The amended complaint had to include all claims Clark wished to pursue because it would replace the original complaint. The court warned that failure to file a timely amended complaint, or filing an insufficient amendment, would result in dismissal of the case. The order also required Clark to keep the court informed of any address change and comply with court orders.