Clark v. Goldstein

Background

Loureece Stone Clark, an inmate in the Marin County Jail proceeding without an attorney, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Marin County officials. The court stated that Clark’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee was granted in a separate order.

Because Clark was a prisoner suing government officials, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires the court to identify valid claims or dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the rule that an unrepresented litigant’s filing must be read liberally, while still requiring enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible.

First claim: alleged death of Clark’s son

Clark alleged that Mark H. Goldstein and James Kim of the Marin County Sheriff’s Department, and Shelly Scott of the Marin County Recorder’s Office, conspired in the murder of his son. The court explained that parents and children have a constitutionally protected interest in each other’s companionship and society, including a parent’s companionship interest after a child becomes an adult. Interference with that interest can support a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim under § 1983.

The court dismissed this claim because Clark did not allege what each defendant did or failed to do, how his son died, or how any defendant’s conduct caused the death. The court granted leave to amend so Clark could provide specific facts about each defendant’s personal involvement and the connection between that conduct and his son’s death.

Second claim: alleged false arrest and imprisonment

Clark alleged that Robert Doyle caused him to be falsely arrested and imprisoned and sought to “eliminate false arrest and false imprisonment.” The court explained that, if Clark was seeking release from custody or an order vacating his conviction or sentence, he had to use a petition seeking release from unlawful custody rather than a civil-rights lawsuit. If he was seeking money damages, the court said he first had to show that his conviction and sentence had been vacated, overturned on appeal, or otherwise invalidated. The court allowed him to amend to allege that his conviction and sentence had been invalidated, if that was in fact true.

Requested arrests and disposition

Clark also asked the court to order the arrest of “all public officials,” including Goldstein. The court held that it lacked authority to order arrests based on alleged violations of Clark’s civil rights and stated that such a request must be directed to law-enforcement officials. The court said Clark could not include that request in an amended complaint.

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ordered that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. The amended complaint had to use the caption and civil case number specified in the order and include the words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page. Because an amended complaint replaces the original, Clark had to include every claim he wished to pursue rather than incorporate the original complaint by reference. The order stated that the case would be dismissed if he failed to file an amended complaint within the designated time or if the amendment was insufficient. The order also reminded Clark that he was responsible for prosecuting the case, keeping the court informed of address changes, and complying with court orders.