Clark v. Commission on Judicial Performance
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-06204
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Loureece Stone Clark v. Commission on Judicial Performance, Judge Corley dismissed Clark’s incomprehensible civil-rights complaint without leave to amend and granted the motion to amend.
Loureece Stone Clark’s federal civil-rights case was dismissed at the required preliminary screening stage, ending the case without permission to amend; the order also granted the motion to amend.
What happened
Loureece Stone Clark v. Commission on Judicial Performance involved a civil-rights complaint filed by Loureece Stone Clark, who was detained at Napa State Hospital and represented himself. The complaint was brought under a federal civil-rights law against the Commission on Judicial Performance, the State Bar of California, and other defendants.
The court said Clark’s only claim was incomprehensible. It could not determine what the defendants allegedly did wrong, what legal terms in the complaint meant, or what rights were violated. The court also noted that Clark had made the same claim in a prior related proceeding and concluded that the claim was frivolous, meaning it lacked an understandable legal or factual basis.
The court dismissed the case without leave to amend and stated that the Clerk should enter judgment and close the file. The court also granted the motion to amend. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley issued the order.
The detailed version
- Clark v. Commission on Judicial Performance · No. 3:22-cv-06204
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Apr. 21, 2023
Background
Loureece Stone Clark, a detainee at Napa State Hospital, filed the complaint without an attorney under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal law that allows claims for violations of federal rights by persons acting under state law. The defendants included the Commission on Judicial Performance, the State Bar of California, and individuals. The opinion states that Clark filed 12 cases in the district court during an approximately six-month period. Clark had been granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order.
Screening standard
Because Clark was detained and sought relief from governmental entities or officials, the court screened the complaint under the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under that statute, the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court also explained that complaints filed without an attorney are read liberally, but they still must provide enough factual allegations to make a plausible claim and must identify a violation of a federal right by a person acting under state law.
Court’s reasoning
Clark’s claim referred to a “false claim,” a “third party interloper,” “UCC 1-308/1-207,” default, a failure to provide a verified response, good-faith performance, and unspecified terms and conditions. The court said it could not understand what these allegations meant or identify what the defendants allegedly failed to do. It relied on its reasoning in a prior related proceeding, docket No. C 22-6174 JSC, where it had found the same claim incomprehensible and frivolous.
The court further concluded that the claim could not be cured by amendment because its incomprehensible nature prevented the court from determining how amendment could make it viable.
Disposition
The case was dismissed without leave to amend. The conclusion also states that the motion to amend was granted. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file. The order was signed by United States District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.