Clark v. Ahern
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-06171
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Clark v. Ahern, Judge Corley denied Clark’s Rule 60(b) reconsideration motion after the civil-rights case had been dismissed as frivolous.
Loureece Stone Clark and the defendants in his dismissed civil-rights case, including Gregory J. Ahern and other named defendants.
What happened
In Clark v. Ahern, Loureece Stone Clark, a California prisoner without a lawyer, asked the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of his civil-rights case as frivolous. He invoked Rule 60(b), which allows relief from a judgment in limited circumstances.
Clark’s filing referred to conditional acceptance, taxes, debts, contracts, fraud, and debt validation, but the court found the allegations incomprehensible. The court also noted that Yesenia L. Sanchez was not a defendant and that Clark did not explain the alleged debts, contracts, misconduct, or which defendants were debt collectors.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied the motion for reconsideration. The order resolved docket number 10.
The detailed version
- Clark v. Ahern · No. 3:22-cv-06171
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Feb. 6, 2024
Background
Loureece Stone Clark, identified as a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously dismissed the case as frivolous. Clark then filed “grounds” for reconsideration, which the court treated as a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
Rule 60(b) standard
Rule 60(b) permits relief from a judgment based on circumstances such as mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence; fraud by the opposing party; a void judgment; satisfaction of the judgment; or another reason justifying relief. The court explained that reconsideration motions are limited to extraordinary circumstances and are not a substitute for an appeal or a way to challenge a perceived court error.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Clark had not alleged mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect in the dismissal order. He also had not presented newly discovered evidence, shown fraud by the defendants, or shown that the judgment was void.
The court further found that Clark’s allegations were not comprehensible. The filing referred to Defendant Yesenia L. Sanchez even though Sanchez was not a defendant. It did not explain what “conditional acceptance of value” Clark had given the defendants or how the matter had been “dismissed.” It also did not explain why any defendant was liable for Clark’s taxes or debts, what the cited account number referred to, what contracts the defendants allegedly formed with him, or what fraudulent inducement, bad faith, willful misconduct, or “bonded servants” meant in this context. Although Clark cited 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, a statute containing disclosure requirements for debt collectors, he did not identify which defendants, if any, were debt collectors.
Disposition
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied the Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration. The order stated that it resolved docket number 10.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.