Clark v. Marin County Sheriffs Department
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-07295
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Clark v. Marin County Sheriff Department, Judge Corley dismissed Clark’s habeas petition, denied a preliminary injunction, and granted leave to proceed without fees.
Loureece Stone Clark; the Marin County Sheriff Department and the other named respondents; and Napa State Hospital officials were discussed but were not named as respondents.
What happened
In Loureece Stone Clark v. Marin County Sheriff Department, Clark, a detainee at Napa State Hospital, filed a petition challenging what he described as foreign debt, commercial contracts, and imprisonment without due process. He also sought an order concerning forced medication at the hospital.
The court said the petition’s allegations were incomprehensible and relied on legally baseless theories, including that Clark owned his birth certificate as a contract. It dismissed the petition without allowing an amended petition. The court also said the forced-medication issue was unrelated to the petition and would have to be raised in a civil-rights case rather than a habeas petition.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley dismissed the case without leave to amend, denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, and granted Clark permission to proceed without paying filing fees because he lacked funds. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.
The detailed version
- Clark v. Marin County Sheriffs Department · No. 3:22-cv-07295
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Apr. 27, 2023
Background
Loureece Stone Clark, identified as a detainee at Napa State Hospital, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the Marin County Sheriff Department and several individuals who appeared to be judges and lawyers involved in his criminal proceedings. Habeas corpus is a procedure for challenging unlawful custody. Clark also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which seeks temporary court-ordered relief while a case is pending.
The petition asserted that Clark was a “natural born Sovereign of California” and an “American born free Federal citizen.” It also described his birth certificate as a commercial contract and sought a government credit set-off through Treasury and Secret Service mechanisms. Clark alleged that he had been falsely identified, charged, and imprisoned as a debtor or employee of a foreign commercial system.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that a claim is frivolous when it is incomprehensible, based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, or clearly lacks a factual basis. It found Clark’s claim incomprehensible and could not determine what he meant by the sovereign-citizen and commercial-contract allegations. The court concluded that the theory that Clark owned his birth certificate as a contract was legally baseless and that the other allegations could not be understood. It also found no way the claim could be fixed by amendment.
Clark’s preliminary-injunction motion sought an order and a federal court date based on his allegation that Napa State Hospital officials forcibly medicated him to calm him down. The court found that allegation unrelated to the petition and noted that the hospital officials were not named as respondents. The court further stated that a challenge to conditions of confinement, such as involuntary medication, must be brought in a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 rather than through a habeas petition.
Rulings
The court dismissed the case without leave to amend, meaning Clark was not permitted to file an amended version in this case. It denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. It granted Clark leave to proceed without paying filing fees because of his lack of funds. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file. The order disposed of docket numbers 6, 7, and 20.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.