a claim is frivolous if it is premised on an indisputably 5 meritless legal theory or is clearly lacking any factual basis
How later courts described this case
- a claim is frivolous if it is premised on an indisputably 5 meritless legal theory or is clearly lacking any factual basis
- leave 15 5 need to amend need not be granted where it constitutes an exercise in futility
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-06170-JSC
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
9
10 GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORP., et al.,
Defendants.
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 Global Tel*Link Corporation and its Chief Executive Officer, Brian D. Oliver. (ECF No. 1 at 2.)
16 In an approximately six-month period, Plaintiff filed 12 cases in this court.1 Plaintiff has been
17 granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in a separate order. For the reasons explained
18 below, the case is 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
24
1 See Clark v. Goldstein, et al., No. C 22-2962 JSC; Clark v. Bay City Auto, et al., No. C 22-4066
JSC; Clark v. Internal Affairs Dep’t. of Marin County Sherriff Dep’t., et al., No. C 22-4972 JSC;
25
Clark v. Marin County District Attorney, et al., No. C 22-5557 JSC; Clark v. Board of
Equalization, No. C 22-6169 JSC; Clark v. Supervisors for Marin County, No. C 22-6173 JSC;
26
Clark v. Ahern, et al., No. C 22-6171 JSC; Clark v. Medical Board of California, et al., No. C 22-
6174 JSC; Clark v. Alameda Cty. Dep’t. of Child Protected Services, et al., No. C 22-6172 JSC;
27
Clark v. Commission on Judicial Performance, et al., No. C 22-6204 JSC; Clark v. Marin County
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 DISCUSSION
18 Plaintiff sets forth the following claim:
19 The respondents[’] false claim as a third party interloper not in
compliance with UCC 1-308/1-207 without prejudice and willful
20 failure to honor, accept or make payment to the COMPLAINT and
SECOND NOTICE without prejudice placing the Respondent(s) in
21 default. The Respondent(s) failure, refusal or neglect in the
presentment of a verified response constitutes the Respondent(s)
22 failure to perform in good faith, acquiescence, and tacit agreement
with all terms, conditions and stipulations set forth and a completion
23 of an administrative process. Therefore this matter is deemed res
judicata and stare decisis.
24
(ECF No. 1 at 2-3.)
25
This is the same claim Plaintiff made in several other cases against different defendants
26
than the parties he sues here. See, e.g., Clark v. Medical Board of California, et al., No C 22-6174
27
JSC; Clark v. Commission on Judicial Performance, et al., No. C 22-6204 JSC; Clark v. Alameda
1 Cty. Dep't. of Child Protected Services, et al., No. C 22-6172 JSC. As explained in the order
2 || dismissing this claim, this claim is incomprehensible and therefore frivolous:
3 Plaintiff's claim is incomprehensible. A claim that is totally
incomprehensible is frivolous. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d
4 639, 641 (9th Cir. 1989); cf Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327
(1989) (a claim is frivolous if it is premised on an indisputably
5 meritless legal theory or is clearly lacking any factual basis). The
alleged “false claim” is unexplained, as are the terms “third party
6 interloper” and “UCC 1-308/1-207.” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) The
allegation that Defendant’s “willful failure to honor, COMPLAINT
7 AND SECOND NOTICE without prejudice placing the
Respondent(s) in default” is incomprehensible. (/d.) In addition,
8 Plaintiff does not explain what Defendants failed to present a
“verified response” to, what Defendants failed to “perform in good
9 faith,” what “terms” and “conditions” applied to Defendants, or
what “administrative process” was completed by whom. (/d.)
10 Plaintiff also cites the legal doctrines of “res judicata” and “stare
decisis” without any explanation for how such doctrines apply to his
1] case. Because the claim is incomprehensible, it must be dismissed
D as frivolous.
Clark v. Medical Board of California, et al., No C 22-6174 JSC (ECF No. 11 at 3).
13
Moreover, because the claim is incomprehensible, the Court cannot discern how it could be
14
cured by amendment. Cf Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994) (leave
15
5 need to amend need not be granted where it constitutes an exercise in futility). Accordingly, the
16
& case is dismissed without leave to amend.
17
CONCLUSION
Z 18
For the reasons explained above, this case is DISMISSED without leave to amend. The
19
motion to amend is GRANTED.
20
The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
Dated: April 28, 2023
23
24 epuai Seth dy.
25 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORL
6 United States District Judge
27
28