Clark v. Medical Board of California

Background

Loureece Stone Clark, a detainee at Napa State Hospital who was proceeding without an attorney, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Medical Board of California and Beth Schluter Jordan, Kristina Daniel Lawson, and Omri Berger. The opinion states that Clark filed 12 cases in the court during an approximately six-month period. Clark separately received permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Clark moved to amend the complaint. The court treated the motion as replacing the original complaint’s captioned “complaint” and requested “relief,” but noted that the motion did not change the original statement of the claim. That statement referred to a “false claim,” a “third party interloper,” UCC provisions, default, a verified response, an administrative process, res judicata, and stare decisis, without explaining the alleged conduct or how those concepts applied.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the screening requirement for complaints filed by prisoners seeking relief from governmental entities or officials. Under that requirement, the court must identify legally viable claims or dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also said that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read liberally, but still must provide enough facts to make the alleged right to relief plausible.

The court held that Clark’s claim was incomprehensible and therefore frivolous. It found that the complaint did not explain the alleged “false claim,” what the defendants failed to respond to or honor, what terms and conditions applied, or what administrative process had been completed. The court also found that the Medical Board of California was a state government agency protected from suit in federal court by the Eleventh Amendment. The court did not identify governmental roles for Lawson or Berger in the opinion, and it stated that Clark described Jordan as a judge in a later filing.

Because the complaint was incomprehensible, the court could not discern how amendment would cure the problems. It therefore dismissed the case without leave to amend.

Other Motions and Disposition

The motion to amend was granted, even though the case was dismissed without leave to amend. The motion notifying the court that the complaint was under submission was denied as unnecessary. The motion to recuse Jordan was denied because the court lacked authority to recuse a judge in a different case in another court. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file.