a claim is frivolous if it is premised 3 on an indisputably meritless legal theory or is clearly lacking any factual basis
How later courts described this case
- a claim is frivolous if it is premised 3 on an indisputably meritless legal theory or is clearly lacking any factual basis
- California Department of Corrections and California Board of Prison Terms 17 entitled to 11th Amendment immunity
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 LOUREECE STONE CLARK, Case No. 22-cv-06169-JSC
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
9
10 BOARD OF EQUALIZATION,
Defendant.
11
12 INTRODUCTION
13 Plaintiff Loureece Stone Clark, a detainee at Napa State Hospital (“NSH”) who is
14 proceeding without an attorney, filed this civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
15 California State Board of Equalization. (ECF No. 1 at 2, 4.) In an approximately six-month
16 period, Plaintiff filed 12 cases in this court.1 Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma
17 pauperis (“IFP”) in a separate order. For the reasons explained below, the complaint is
18 DISMISSED.
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 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
24
1 See 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 Dep’t. of Marin County Sherriff Dep’t., et al., No. C 22-4972 JSC;
Clark v. Marin County District Attorney, et al., No. C 22-5557 JSC; Clark v. Global Tel*Link
26
Corp., et al., No. C 22-6170 JSC; Clark v. Ahern, et al., No. C 22-6171 JSC; Clark v. Alameda
Cty. Dep’t. of Child Protected Services, et al., No. C 22-6172 JSC; Clark v. Supervisors for Marin
27
County, No. C 22-6173 JSC; Clark v. Medical Board of California, et al., No. C 22-6174 JSC;
1 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.
2 § 1915A(b). Pleadings filed by parties who are not represented by an attorney must be liberally
3 construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the
5 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the
6 statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon
7 which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to
8 state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to
9 provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
10 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must
11 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
12 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a
13 claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. To state a claim that is plausible on its
14 face, a plaintiff must allege facts that "allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
15 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
16 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a
17 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged
18 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
19 42, 48 (1988).
20 DISCUSSION
21 The complaint sets forth the following claim, which is quoted in its entirety:
22 The Respondent(s) willful failure of non-acceptance and non-
payment of just compensation in honor shows bad faith placing the
23 Respondent(s) in default. The Respondent(s) failure, refusal, or
neglect in the presentment of a verified response constitutes the
24 Respondent(s) failure to perform in good faith, acquiescence, and
tacit agreement with all terms, conditions and stipulations set forth
25 and a completion of an administrative process. Therefore this matter
is deemed res judicata and stare decisis.
26
(ECF No. 1 at 2.)
27
There are two problems with the complaint. First, Plaintiff’s claim is incomprehensible. A
1 claim that is totally incomprehensible is frivolous. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 641 (9th
2 Cir. 1989); cf. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989) (a claim is frivolous if it is premised
3 on an indisputably meritless legal theory or is clearly lacking any factual basis). The allegation
4 that Defendant’s “willful failure of non-acceptance and non-payment of just compensation in
5 honor shows bad faith” by Defendants is incomprehensible. (Id.) In addition, Plaintiff does not
6 explain what Defendant failed to present a “verified response” to, what Defendant failed to
7 “perform in good faith,” what “terms” and “conditions” applied to Defendant, or what
8 “administrative process” was completed by whom. (Id.) Plaintiff also cites the legal doctrines of
9 “res judicata” and “stare decisis” without any explanation for how such doctrines apply to his case.
10 Second, Defendant the California State Board of Equalization is a state agency that is
11 immune from suit in federal court. The Eleventh Amendment bars from the federal courts suits
12 against a state or state agencies by its own citizens, citizens of another state or citizens or subjects
13 of any foreign state. Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 237-38 (1985); see, e.g.,
14 Fortson v. Los Angeles City Atty’s Office, 852 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2017) (Calif. Bureau of
15 Firearms entitled to 11th Amendment immunity); Brown v. Cal. Dep't of Corrs., 554 F.3d 747,
16 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (California Department of Corrections and California Board of Prison Terms
17 entitled to 11th Amendment immunity)
18 Plaintiff’s claim cannot be cured by amendment because Plaintiff makes an Because the
19 complaint sets forth an incomprehensible is frivolous, and the Court cannot discern how it could
20 be cured by amendment. Cf. Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994)
21 (leave need to amend need not be granted where it constitutes an exercise in futility).
22 Accordingly, the case is dismissed without leave to amend.
23 CONCLUSION
24 For the reasons explained above, this case is DISMISSED without leave to amend.
25 The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.
26 //
27 //
1 IT IS SO ORDERED.
2 Dated: April 17, 2023
3
4 ne
JAQQUELINE SCOTT CORL
5 United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
©
15
16
= 17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28