Clark v. Global TelLink Corp.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-06170
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Clark v. Global TelLink Corp., Judge Corley dismissed the incomprehensible civil-rights complaint as frivolous without leave to amend and granted the motion to amend.
The dismissal ended Loureece Stone Clark’s case against Global Tel*Link Corp. and Brian D. Oliver at the preliminary screening stage; the court did not allow amendment of the complaint.
What happened
In Clark v. Global TelLink Corp., Loureece Stone Clark, who was detained at Napa State Hospital and had no attorney, sued Global Tel*Link Corp. and its chief executive officer under a civil-rights law.
Clark’s complaint referred to an unexplained “false claim,” “third party interloper,” and provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code. It also alleged that the defendants failed to respond to notices and cited legal doctrines without explaining how they applied. The court found the claim incomprehensible and frivolous.
Judge Corley dismissed the case without leave to amend, meaning the court did not allow Clark to revise the complaint. The court also granted the motion to amend, entered judgment, and closed the file.
The detailed version
- Clark v. Global TelLink Corp. · No. 3:22-cv-06170
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Apr. 28, 2023
Background
Loureece Stone Clark, a detainee at Napa State Hospital, filed the case without an attorney. The complaint was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Global Tel*Link Corp. and its chief executive officer, Brian D. Oliver. The court noted that Clark had filed 12 cases in the court over approximately six months and had been granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees in a separate order.
Screening standard
The court conducted the preliminary screening required for certain complaints filed by people seeking relief from governmental entities or their officers or employees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but still must provide enough factual information to give defendants fair notice of the claim and make the requested relief plausible.
The complaint
Clark alleged that the defendants made a “false claim” as a “third party interloper” and failed to honor or respond to a complaint and a second notice. The complaint referred to Uniform Commercial Code sections 1-308 and 1-207, default, good-faith performance, an administrative process, res judicata, and stare decisis.
The court said this was the same claim Clark had made in several other cases against different defendants. It found the claim incomprehensible because Clark did not explain the alleged false claim, the reference to a third-party interloper, the cited Uniform Commercial Code provisions, the notices, the requested verified response, the applicable terms and conditions, or the alleged administrative process. The court also found that Clark did not explain how res judicata or stare decisis applied.
Ruling
The court held that an incomprehensible claim is frivolous and dismissed the claim as frivolous. It further concluded that the problem could not be cured by amendment and dismissed the case without leave to amend. In the conclusion, the court also stated that the motion to amend was granted. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.