Clark v. Ahern
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-06171
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Clark v. Ahern, Judge Corley dismissed Clark’s incomprehensible civil-rights complaint without leave to amend.
The dismissal affected Loureece Stone Clark, Cooking for Kidz, and the Loureece Stone Clark Trust as the plaintiffs named in the case; the court also discussed Clark’s inability to represent the other two plaintiffs.
What happened
In Clark v. Ahern, Loureece Stone Clark, who was detained at Napa State Hospital and represented himself, sued Alameda County officials and another defendant under a federal civil-rights law. He referred to real property, an eviction, and alleged violations of due process, but did not clearly explain what happened or how federal law was violated.
The court found the complaint wholly incomprehensible and frivolous. It also noted that Clark named Cooking for Kidz and the Loureece Stone Clark Trust as additional plaintiffs without explaining their claims, and that he could not represent them without being a licensed lawyer. The court concluded that the problems could not be fixed by changing the complaint.
Judge Corley dismissed the case without leave to amend, ordered the clerk to enter judgment, and directed the clerk to close the file.
The detailed version
- Clark v. Ahern · No. 3:22-cv-06171
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Apr. 14, 2023
Background
Loureece Stone Clark, who was detained at Napa State Hospital and proceeded without an attorney, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department, Alameda County Sheriff Gregory Ahern, and Al Kashikar. The complaint also named Cooking for Kidz and the Loureece Stone Clark Trust as plaintiffs. The court separately granted Clark permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Screening standard
The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires courts to review complaints filed by people confined in certain government facilities and dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by someone acting under state authority.
Court’s analysis
The complaint alleged that defendants used their authority to evict people from residential or rental property, interfere with property rights, and violate due process. The court found the allegations wholly incomprehensible. It said the complaint did not explain the alleged “false claim,” did not identify what “federal property” defendants supposedly removed, and did not sufficiently explain the references to real property, “squatters rights,” or eviction. The court also stated that claims involving real property are generally governed by state law and that a conclusory reference to due process did not explain a violation of federal law.
The court further found that Clark did not explain how the two other named plaintiffs were harmed or how defendants were liable to them under federal law. It noted that Clark could not represent those plaintiffs unless he was a licensed lawyer, and that he had not alleged facts showing he could appear or sign pleadings for them.
Disposition
Because the complaint was incomprehensible and frivolous, and because the court could not discern how amendment could cure the defects, the court dismissed the case without leave to amend. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ordered the clerk to enter judgment and close the file.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.