leave need to amend need not be granted where it constitutes an exercise in futility
How later courts described this case
- leave need to amend need not be granted where it constitutes an exercise in futility
- a claim is frivolous if 8 it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or is clearly lacking any factual basis
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. 23-cv-00967-JSC
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
9
10 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
13 INTRODUCTION
14 Plaintiff, a detainee at Napa State Hospital (“NSH”), filed this civil rights complaint under
15 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Social Security Administration, the Marin County Sheriff’s
16 Department, and the California Department of State Hospitals. (ECF No. 1 at 2-3.) Plaintiff filed
17 12 cases in this court, including this one, in approximately six months.1 He has been granted leave
18 to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons explained below, the complaint
19 is DISMISSED. Plaintiff’s motions and other requests are also addressed below.
20 STANDARD OF REVIEW
21 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
22 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
23 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of
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. Marin County District Attorney, et al., No. C 22-5557 JSC; Clark v. Ahern, et al.,
No. C 22-6171 JSC; Clark v. Board of Equalization, No. C 22-6169 JSC; Clark v. Supervisors for
26
Marin County, 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 JSC; Clark v. Alameda
27
Cty. Dep’t. of Child Protected Services, et al., No. C 22-6172 JSC; Clark v. Global Tel*Link
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:
23 [T]he defendant(s) willful failure, refusal of my just compensation
of trust fund under the Fifth Amendment, move this court for this
24 cause of action of the attached prima facie evidence of their bad
faith by false identifiable titles of Nobility as bonded public servants
25 own self profits and / or stock shareholders corporate profits as
CONTRACTORS to restrain and monopolizing me of the benefits
26 pursuant to the rules of commerce using the commercial Monetary
Debit / Credit System in order to control our American Federal
27 Gov’t Rights of Free and Just trade, invasion of privacy, deliberate
Procedures Act, Negotiable Instruments Act, Privacy Act of 1974,
1 1940 Fiduciary Duty and Obligations Act, and the Social Security
Act unlawful private communications between each defendant(s)
2 depriving my rights under color of law is abuse and are liable of the
compelled benefit of any unrevealed contracts or commercial
3 agreements and I am entitled to the interest, benefits and all money
damages as my relief pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964
4 without due process of law as my right to life, liberty and pursuit of
happiness.
5
(ECF No. 1 at 4.)
6
A claim that is totally incomprehensible is frivolous. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d
7
639, 641 (9th Cir. 1989); cf. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989) (a claim is frivolous if
8
it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or is clearly lacking any factual basis).
9
Plaintiff’s claim is wholly incomprehensible. The Court cannot discern the meaning of a “trust
10
fund under the Fifth Amendment,” the “false identifiable titles of Nobility,” “the rules of
11
commerce using the commercial Monetary Debit / Credit System,” or “deliberate indifference for
12
failure to state a claim which relief can be granted” for example. (Id.) The complaint makes a
13
conclusory allegation that defendants violated a host of federal laws. (Id.) He alleges that
14
unspecified “unlawful private communications between each defendant(s)” violated his rights, but
15
he does not specify what those communications concerned let alone explain how they violated any
16
of the myriad federal laws he lists. (Id.) For these reasons, the Court finds the complaint
17
incomprehensible (and therefore frivolous) and as such, moreover, the Court cannot discern any
18
way for it to be cured by amendment. See Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th
19
Cir. 1994) (leave need to amend need not be granted where it constitutes an exercise in futility).
20
Accordingly, the case is dismissed without leave to amend.
21
//
22
//
23
24
25
26
27
1 CONCLUSION
2 For the reasons explained above, this case is DISMISSED without leave to amend.
3 The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.
4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5 Dated: April 27, 2023
6
7 ne
ACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE
8 United States District Judge
9
10
ll
a 12
14
15
16
€
= 17
6
Zz 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28