Clark v. Goldstein
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-02962
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Clark v. Goldstein, Judge Corley dismissed the civil-rights case for failure to state a claim and granted Clark’s request for a copy.
Loureece Stone Clark’s case was dismissed. The ruling concerned claims against Mark H. Goldstein and Marin County officials James H. Kim, Robert Doyle, Jaime Scardina, and Shelly Marie Scott. Clark’s request for a copy of docket number 17 and its attachments was granted.
What happened
In Clark v. Goldstein, Loureece Stone Clark, who was detained at Napa State Hospital and represented himself, sued Mark H. Goldstein and four Marin County officials under a federal civil-rights law. Clark alleged that a restraining order, racial discrimination, a recorded deed of trust, and officials’ sharing of private information were connected to the shooting death of his son.
The court concluded that Goldstein was a private individual, not a government actor who could be sued under that civil-rights law. It also found that Clark did not provide enough specific facts to support his claims against the county officials, including his claims about the restraining order, racial discrimination, his son’s death, and the deed of trust.
The court dismissed the case because the amended complaint did not state a claim that could be heard and decided by the court, and it found that allowing another amendment would be futile. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley also granted Clark’s request for a copy of a joint case-management statement and its attachments and ordered the file closed.
The detailed version
- Clark v. Goldstein · No. 3:22-cv-02962
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Apr. 5, 2023
Background
Loureece Stone Clark, a detainee at Napa State Hospital who was proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against four Marin County officials—James H. Kim, Robert Doyle, Jaime Scardina, and Shelly Marie Scott—and Mark H. Goldstein. The court had dismissed Clark’s original complaint while allowing him to amend it. Clark then filed an amended complaint.
Clark alleged that Goldstein and Goldstein’s wife alerted county officials about what appeared to be a dispute over real-property ownership. Clark attached a restraining order that Goldstein obtained in Marin County Superior Court. Clark alleged that the order was false and had been filed because he is Black. He also alleged that a Marin County prosecutor, who was not named as a defendant, discriminated against him, invaded his privacy, filed false criminal charges, and provided his personal information to Goldstein. Clark alleged that a superior court judge, also not named as a defendant, found him mentally incompetent and sent him to Napa State Hospital. He further alleged that Scott improperly recorded a deed of trust for Goldstein and that Kim, Doyle, Scardina, and Scott shared private information that led to Clark’s son being shot and killed.
Screening and Analysis
Because Clark was detained and sued government officials, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That law requires the court to identify legally valid claims or dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that it would read a complaint filed without a lawyer liberally, but that the complaint still had to include enough facts to make a claim plausible.
The court dismissed the claims against Goldstein because Section 1983 requires an alleged constitutional violation by a person acting under state law. The amended complaint did not allege that Goldstein was a government official, employee, or representative of a government entity.
The court rejected Clark’s claim that Kim filed false statements in the restraining order. Clark did not explain what was false, and the court found no authority making a state court employee liable for filing an order signed by a judge or requiring the employee to verify the order’s contents before filing it.
The court also rejected Clark’s racial-discrimination claim against Kim. Clark did not allege specific facts showing that Kim filed the order because of Clark’s race, treated similarly situated people of other races differently, or acted for a reason other than performing his job as the court’s executive officer. The court described the allegation of racial bias as conclusory, meaning it stated a conclusion without supporting facts.
The court concluded that the claim concerning Clark’s son’s shooting also lacked sufficient facts. Clark alleged only that the four county officials collectively provided addresses, license-plate information, and other private information. He did not identify what each defendant did, to whom the information was provided, or who shot his son. The court therefore found no plausible facts showing that each defendant actually and proximately caused the alleged deprivation of Clark’s constitutional right to companionship with his son.
Finally, the court dismissed the claim against Scott concerning the deed of trust. It found no cited authority establishing that a county recorder violates federal law merely by recording a deed of trust for someone who does not own the property.
Disposition
The court found that the amended complaint repeated deficiencies from the original complaint or added claims that were not capable of being judicially heard and decided. Because further amendment would be futile, the court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim that was capable of being judicially heard and decided. The court ordered the clerk to enter judgment and close the file.
Separately, the court granted Clark’s request for a copy of docket number 17, including its attachments. The order resolved docket number 17.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.