Clark v. Marin County District Attorney

Background

Loureece Stone Clark, identified as a detainee at Napa State Hospital, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Marin County District Attorney and a deputy district attorney. Section 1983 provides a way to seek relief for violations of federal rights committed by someone acting under state authority. Clark also filed two motions for a preliminary injunction and a subpoena duces tecum, which is a request for an order requiring production of documents or other evidence.

The complaint alleged that the defendants acted in bad faith, attempted to control a “Commercial Monetary Debit/Credit System,” and presented a bill of particulars without Clark’s knowledge or written consent. It also referred to due process, the right to petition, the right to publicity, common-law rights, and provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code. The opinion quotes the claim in full and notes that the complaint did not explain how these terms related to specific facts or a legal violation.

Screening analysis

Because Clark sought relief from governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That statute requires the court to identify legally sufficient claims or dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek relief from an immune defendant. The court also applied the requirement that a complaint provide enough factual content to give defendants fair notice of the claim and make the requested relief plausible.

The court held that Clark’s claim was “wholly incomprehensible.” Although the complaint included legal terminology, the court found that the terms had no apparent or explained relationship to one another and were not supported by factual allegations. The court determined that the claim was therefore frivolous. It also concluded that the problem could not be cured by amendment, so it dismissed the case without leave to amend.

Motions and disposition

The court denied both motions for a preliminary injunction and the subpoena request. One motion did not identify the injunction sought or the material to be subpoenaed. The other sought an emergency and general injunction concerning Clark’s constitutional rights and evidence related to criminal proceedings. The court noted that the defendants had not been served, Clark had not certified efforts to notify them, and a preliminary injunction requires a showing that the claim is likely to succeed. Because the court found the claim frivolous, it concluded that there was no possibility of success.

Judge Jacquelyn Corley ordered that the case be dismissed without leave to amend, denied the motions for a preliminary injunction and a subpoena duces tecum, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the file.