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 Alameda County Department of Child Support Services and two individuals, David Kilgore and 16 Alita Navas.1 (ECF No. 1 at 2.) In an approximately six-month period, Plaintiff filed 12 cases in 17 this court.2 Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in a separate 18 order. For the reasons explained 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 23 1 Plaintiff does not identify what governmental positions these defendants hold, if any. 24 2 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. California Commission on Judicial Performance, et al., No. C 22-6173 JSC; 27 Clark v. Global Tel*Link Corp., et al., No. C 22-6170 JSC; Clark v. Marin County Sherriff’s 1 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of 2 the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 3 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. 4 § 1915A(b). Pleadings filed by parties who are not represented by an attorney must be liberally 5 construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 7 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 8 statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon 9 which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although to 10 state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to 11 provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a 12 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must 13 be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 14 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a 15 claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. To state a claim that is plausible on its 16 face, a plaintiff must allege facts that "allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 17 defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 18 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 19 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 20 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 21 42, 48 (1988). 22 DISCUSSION 23 Plaintiff sets forth the following claim:

24 The respondents[’] false claim as a third party interloper not in compliance with UCC 1-308/1-207 and willful failure to honor, 25 accept or make payment to the CANCEL/DISCHARGE PARTICIPANT ID NUMBER and SECOND NOTICE without 26 prejudice placing the Respondent in default. The Respondents failure, refusal or neglect in the presentment of a verified response 27 constitutes the Respondents failure to perform in good faith, Therefore this matter is deem[ed] res judicata and stare decisis. 1 (ECF No. 1 at 2-3.) 2 This claim is virtually identical to the claim Plaintiff made in two other cases, Clark v. 3 California Commission on Judicial Performance, et al., No. C 22-6204 JSC, and Clark v. Medical 4 Board of California, et al., No C 22-6174 JSC. For the reasons explained in the order dismissing 5 the former, this claim is incomprehensible and therefore frivolous: 6 Plaintiff’s claim is incomprehensible. A claim that is totally 7 incomprehensible is frivolous. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 641 (9th Cir. 1989); cf. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 8 (1989) (a claim is frivolous if it is premised on an indisputably meritless legal theory or is clearly lacking any factual basis). The 9 alleged “false claim” is unexplained, as are the terms “third party interloper” and “UCC 1-308/1-207.” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) The 10 allegation that Defendant’s “willful failure to honor, COMPLAINT AND SECOND NOTICE without prejudice placing the 11 Respondent(s) in default” is incomprehensible. (Id.) In addition, Plaintiff does not explain what Defendants failed to present a 12 “verified response” to, what Defendants failed to “perform in good faith,” what “terms” and “conditions” applied to Defendants, or 13 what “administrative process” was completed by whom. (Id.) Plaintiff also cites the legal doctrines of “res judicata” and “stare 14 decisis” without any explanation for how such doctrines apply to his case. Because the claim is incomprehensible, it must be dismissed 15 as frivolous. 16 Id. (ECF No. 11 at 3). The only change Plaintiff made from his claim in Case numbers C-22- 17 6174-JSC and C-22-6204-JSC is to the phrase “willful failure to honor, COMPLAINT AND 18 SECOND NOTICE without prejudice placing the Respondent(s) in default,” which Plaintiff now 19 changed to “willful failure to honor, accept or make payment to the CANCEL/DISCHARGE 20 PARTICIPANT ID NUMBER AND SECOND NOTICE without prejudice placing the 21 Respondent(s) in default.” (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Even with this change, this phrase, and the claim as 22 a whole, is not comprehensible. 23 Because Plaintiff’s claim is incomprehensible, it is frivolous, and the Court cannot discern 24 how Plaintiff could fix it in an amended complaint. Cf. Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 25 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994) (leave need to amend need not be granted where it constitutes an exercise 26 in futility). Accordingly, the case is dismissed without leave to amend. 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 21, 2023 6 ; ne

AACQWELINE SCOTT CORLEY

8 United States District Judge 9 10 ll a 12

2B 14

15 16 € = 17 6 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28