Clark v. Alameda County Department of Child Support Services

Background

Loureece Stone Clark, a detainee at Napa State Hospital, filed the complaint without an attorney under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute allows a person to sue for violations of federal rights committed by someone acting under state law. The defendants were the Alameda County Department of Child Support Services, David Kilgore, and Alita Navas. The opinion states that Clark did not identify the governmental positions, if any, held by the individual defendants.

Clark had filed 12 cases in the court during an approximately six-month period. The court separately granted Clark permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. This order addressed the required preliminary screening of the complaint.

Screening Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must screen a complaint filed by a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental entity or officer. The court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from a defendant protected from that type of 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.

Discussion

Clark's claim stated that the defendants made a false claim as a third-party interloper, failed to honor or make payment to a participant identification number and second notice, and failed to provide a verified response or perform in good faith. Clark also referred to U.C.C. §§ 1-308 and 1-207, res judicata, and stare decisis.

The court found the claim virtually identical to claims Clark had made in two other cases. Relying on the reasoning in an order dismissing one of those related cases, the court held that the claim was incomprehensible and therefore frivolous. The court explained that Clark did not identify what the alleged false claim was, what the cited commercial-code provisions meant in this context, what the defendants were supposed to respond to, what duties or terms applied to them, or how res judicata and stare decisis applied.

The court noted that Clark had changed some wording from the earlier versions of the claim, but found that the change did not make the claim understandable. It also concluded that the problem could not be fixed in an amended complaint.

Disposition

The case was dismissed without leave to amend. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley signed the order on April 21, 2023.