Clark v. Internal Affairs Department for the Marin County Sheriff

Background

Loureece Stone Clark, described as a detainee at Napa State Hospital, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Marin County Sheriff’s Department, its Internal Affairs Division, and two individuals. Section 1983 provides a way to seek relief for violations of federal rights by a person acting under state law. The court also noted that Clark had filed 12 cases in that court in approximately six months.

Because the case sought relief from governmental entities or employees, the court conducted the preliminary screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court also applied the requirement that a complaint provide enough factual information to give defendants fair notice of the claim and make the requested relief plausible.

Complaint and dismissal

The complaint’s sole claim stated that the defendants had failed to honor Clark’s “presentments,” failed or refused to provide a “verified response,” failed to act in good faith, and agreed to unspecified terms and obligations. The complaint then stated that the matter was “res judicata” and subject to “stare decisis,” without explaining how those doctrines applied. The court found the claim wholly incomprehensible and therefore frivolous. It said there was no explanation of how the allegations supported a federal claim. Although some allegations might suggest a state-law contract claim, Clark alleged no contract and did not explain how such a contract could support a federal claim.

The court concluded that the incomprehensible claim could not be cured by amendment. It therefore dismissed the case without leave to amend. The court did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Preliminary-injunction motions

Clark filed two motions for a preliminary injunction. The first did not identify the injunction sought. The second made allegations about involuntarily administered medication at the Marin County Jail. The court found that those allegations had no apparent connection to the complaint and that any need for an injunction based on them appeared moot because Clark was then at Napa State Hospital rather than the Marin County Jail.

The court also stated that a preliminary injunction requires notice to the defendants or a certification of efforts to provide notice, and a showing that the plaintiff is likely to succeed. The defendants had not been served, Clark had not certified efforts to notify them, and the underlying claim was frivolous. The court therefore denied both preliminary-injunction motions.

Other filing and final order

The court received another filing, docketed as a letter, concerning alleged “trust fraud” by individual defendant Beth Jordan. The court said it was unclear what Clark intended the filing to be. To the extent Clark intended to assert a fraud claim against Jordan, the court stated that it was a state-law claim that had to be brought in state court.

The court also declined to issue Clark’s requested subpoena because the case was being dismissed. Judge Jacquelyn Corley ordered the case dismissed without leave to amend, denied the preliminary-injunction motions, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, and ordered the file closed.