# Clark v. Marin County District Attorney

> District Court, N.D. California · April 13, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10074901

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** April 13, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10074901

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 LOUREECE STONE CLARK, Case No. 22-cv-05557-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING
MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY
9 v. INJUNCTION AND SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM
10 MARIN COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, et al., (ECF Nos. 4, 5)
11
Defendants.
12
INTRODUCTION
13
Plaintiff, a detainee at Napa State Hospital (“NSH”), filed this civil rights complaint under
14
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Marin County District Attorney and a Deputy District Attorney.
15
(ECF No. 1 at 2.) Plaintiff filed 12 cases in this court, including this one, in approximately six
16
months.1 He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. For the
17
reasons explained below, the complaint is DISMISSED, and Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary
18
injunction and a subpoena duces tecum are DENIED
19
STANDARD OF REVIEW
20
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
21
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
22
1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of
23
24
1See Clark v. Goldstein, et al., No. C 22-2962 JSC; Clark v. Bay City Auto, et al., No. C 22-4066
25
JSC; Clark v. Internal Affairs Division of Marin Cty. Sherriff’s Dept., et al., No. C 22-4972 JSC;
Clark v. Ahern, et al., No. C 22-6171 JSC; Clark v. Board of Equalization, No. C 22-6169 JSC;
26
Clark v. Supervisors for Marin Cty., No. C 22-6173 JSC; Clark v. Medical Board of California, et
al., No. C 22-6174 JSC; Clark v. Commission on Judicial Performance, et al., No. C 22-6204
27
JSC; Clark v. Alameda Cty. Dep’t. of Child Protected Services, et al., No. C 22-6172 JSC; Clark
1 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
2 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.
3 § 1915A(b). Pleadings filed by parties who are not represented by an attorney must be liberally
4 construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the
6 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the
7 statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon
8 which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to
9 state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to
10 provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
11 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must
12 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
13 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a
14 claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. To state a claim that is plausible on its
15 face, a plaintiff must allege facts that "allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
16 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
17 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a
18 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged
19 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
20 42, 48 (1988).
21 DISCUSSION
22 The complaint sets forth the following claim, which is quoted in its entirety:

23 My statement of claim is the Respondent(s) cause of acting of the
attached prima facie evidence of their bad faith as bonded public
24 servants own self profit and/or shareholders corporate profits as
CONTRACTORS to restrain and monopolize the Commercial
25 Monetary Debit/Credit System in order to control our American
Federal Governmental Rights of Free and Just Trade. I do not
26 accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed
contract or commercial agreement. I am not ever subject to any
27 silent contracts and have never knowingly or willingly contracted
1 Marin County District Attorney, Lori Elizabeth Frugoli, Daniel L.
Madow, et al., presented a Bill of Particular without my knowledge
2 or written consent, who are not the injured parties and no proof of
service without due process of law. An autographed promise to
3 appear by the Authorized Representative without Prejudice without
Recourse was removed from evidence showing bad faith and
4 abandoned my right to petition and right to publicity as a matter of
asserted secured Common Law Rights by the Constitution, and not
5 in compliance without prejudice UCC 1-308/1-207.
6 (ECF No. 1 at 2-3.)
7 A claim that is totally incomprehensible is frivolous. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d
8 639, 641 (9th Cir. 1989); cf. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989) (a claim is frivolous if
9 it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or is clearly lacking any factual basis).
10 Plaintiff’s claim is wholly incomprehensible. It contains some legal terms, but they have no
11 apparent or explained relation to each other and are not supported by any factual allegations. The
12 claim also uses a variety phrases whose meaning is not explained, and certainly not obvious, such
13 as the “Commercial Monetary Debit/Credit System,” “the American Federal Governmental Rights
14 of Free and Just Trade,” “the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or
15 commercial agreement,” “Authorized Representative;” the “autographed promise to appear;” the
16 “right to publicity;” “secured Common Law Rights;” and “UCC 1-308/1-207.” (ECF No. 1 at 2-
17 3.) The Court also does not understand the allegation that he has “sovereignty as a Lawful Federal
18 Gov’t Citizen, Owner of Age, and non UCC person.” (Id. at 3.) The foregoing allegations and
19 Plaintiff’s claim as a whole are totally incomprehensible and, therefore, frivolous. Because the
20 claim is incomprehensible, moreover, the Court cannot discern any way for it to be cured by
21 amendment. See Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994) (leave need to
22 amend need not be granted where it constitutes an exercise in futility). Accordingly, the case is
23 dismissed without leave to amend.
24 Plaintiff has filed two motions for a preliminary injunction and a subpoena duces tecum.
25 (ECF Nos. 4, 5.) The first does not describe what form of injunction he seeks or what he wishes to
26 subpoena. (ECF No. 4.) The second motion seeks “an emergency restraining order indefinite for
27 defendants depriving me of my Magna Carta Bill of Rights converting a right into a crime and
1 general injunction ordering Defendants not to violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights or hide
2 || evidence relevant to his criminal proceedings because Defendants already have a legal obligation
3 not to do these things. In addition, a preliminary injunction requires service upon the Defendants
4 or a certificate of the efforts, if any, Plaintiff has made to give notice of the motion to the
5 Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1), (b). Defendants have not been served, and Plaintiff has
6 || not certified his efforts to notify Defendants of the motion. A preliminary injunction also requires
7 Plaintiff to show his claims are likely to succeed. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense
8 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). There is no possibility that Plaintiffs claim will succeed
9 || because it is frivolous. Accordingly, the motions for a preliminary injunction and for a subpoena
10 || duces tecum are denied.
11 CONCLUSION
12 For the reasons explained above, this case is DISMISSED without leave to amend. The
13 motions for a preliminary injunction and a subpoena duces tecum are DENIED.
14 The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.
3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED.
a 16 || Dated: April 13, 2023

JAQQUELINE SCOTT CORL
19 United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10074901. Public record. Not legal advice.