Clark v. Bay City Auto

Background

Loureece Stone Clark, who was detained at Napa State Hospital and was proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Secretary of the California Department of Motor Vehicles and several auto repair shops and dealerships. Section 1983 provides a way to seek relief for certain violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority.

The court had previously dismissed Clark’s original complaint with permission to amend. That order explained that Clark had not alleged facts describing the contracts at issue, the alleged breaches, the defendants’ individual actions, or the factual basis for claims involving racketeering, tax evasion, “double dipping,” and privacy invasion. It also explained that private individuals and entities generally are not liable under Section 1983 unless they acted under color of state law—that is, through government coercion or encouragement, a joint activity with the government, a delegated public function, or a sufficiently close connection with government control.

Amended Complaint

The amended complaint named 16 defendants and alleged that they breached contracts, suppressed evidence, conspired concerning currency, committed trust fraud, trespassed law, and acted with deliberate indifference. The court found these allegations were labels and conclusions rather than sufficient factual allegations. Clark alleged only that each defendant sold or transferred his private property, without stating what property was sold, when it was sold, to whom, or how each defendant participated.

Clark also referred to the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Patriot Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the “1940 Fiduciary Duty Obligations Act,” and the Fifth Amendment, but did not identify the provisions allegedly violated. The court noted that some of the referenced laws did not appear to be laws of the United States. In addition, the court found that Clark had not alleged facts showing that the private dealerships, repair shops, and Wells Fargo Bank employee acted under state authority.

Ruling

The court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim capable of being heard and decided. Because Clark had been instructed how to correct the original complaint and the amended complaint repeated the same deficiencies, the court dismissed the case without further leave to amend. The opinion did not describe the dismissal using the terms “with prejudice” or “without prejudice.”

Clark also moved for a preliminary injunction and a subpoena. A preliminary injunction is an order temporarily requiring or preventing specified conduct. The court denied the motion because Clark did not identify what he wanted the court to prohibit or subpoena, the defendants had not been served, and he had not certified efforts to notify them. The court also concluded that Clark could not show a likelihood of success because the complaint contained no claim the court could hear and decide.

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ordered the clerk to enter judgment and close the file. The order resolved docket number 8.