(HC) Clark v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, No. 2:2018cv02948 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 04/09/19 GRANTING 7 Motion to Proceed IFP. The clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a District Judge to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Assigned and referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Clark v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Doc. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LOUREECE STONE CLARK, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:18-cv-2948 AC P Petitioner, v. ORDER and CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondent. 17 18 I. Introduction 19 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion to proceed in forma 20 pauperis and a petition for a writ of mandate. See ECF Nos. 1, 7. Petitioner avers in part that he 21 is “overdue on release” and seeks, inter alia, his “release asap.” ECF No. 1 at 2-3. This action 22 was designated upon filing as both a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a petition for writ of 23 mandate under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The case is referred to the undersigned 24 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c). For 25 the reasons that follow, the court grants petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis but 26 recommends the dismissal of this action for lack of jurisdiction. 27 Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford 28 the costs of suit ($5.00). Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis, see ECF No. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 7 (see also ECF No. 8), will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 2 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this court must summarily 3 dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by a state prisoner if it “plainly appears from the 4 petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” 5 The All Writs Act, which authorizes federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in 6 aid of their jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law,” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), 7 is “not a grant of plenary power to the federal courts. Rather, it is designed to aid the courts in the 8 exercise of their jurisdiction.” Plum Creek Lumber Company v. Hutton, 608 F.2d 1283, 1289 9 (9th Cir. 1979). 10 Exhibits to the petition include a Felony Abstract of Judgment in Sacramento County Case 11 No. 17FE001757, indicating that petitioner was convicted by jury on February 16, 2018, for 12 violation of California Vehicle Code § 2800.2(a) (evading a police officer/reckless driving), and 13 was sentenced to a prison term of six years; petitioner was also ordered to pay $1800 in restitution 14 and fees. ECF No. 1 at 11, 25, 39 (duplicates). The petition and its exhibits are replete with 15 references to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The petition seeks a peremptory writ, under 16 California law, commanding respondents California Department of Corrections and 17 Rehabilitation and the Sacramento County Superior Court to “[r]eserve my right not to be 18 compelled to perform under any contract of commercial agreement by bonded officials 19 unconstitutionally under oath of office acting as an exector de son tort without full disclosure and 20 order defendants’ release asap.” Id. at 3 (sic) (emphasis added); see also id. at 2 (identifying 21 respondents).1 An exector de son tort refers to “[a] person who, without legal authority, takes on 22 the responsibility to act as an executor or administrator of a decedent’s property, usually to the 23 detriment of the estate’s beneficiaries or creditors.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Ed. (1999), p. 24 591. 25 26 Exhibits to the petition include a copy of petitioner’s relevant inmate grievance submitted October 5, 2018, ECF No. 1 at 21-4; 35- 8 (duplicate); a Letter Rogatory for Relief under the 27 28 1 Duplicate copies of the petition are included. See ECF No. 1 at 1-6; 15-20; 29-34. 2 1 Hague Convention, signed by petitioner, 18 U.S.C. § 1781, id. at 43-6; a Durable Power of 2 Attorney executed by petitioner for petitioner, id. at 47-71; a “Cease and Desist From Copyright 3 Infringement Notice,” id. at 54-7; petitioner’s birth certificate, id. at 60, 68 (duplicate); and an 4 affidavit of reservation of rights under the UCC, id. at 62-70. 5 The court takes particular note of an exhibit called “Affidavit of Fact and Surrender of the 6 Alleged Legal Fiction/Legal Person/Legal Entity ‘Loureece Stone Clark ©,’” which is endorsed 7 as “received” by the Sacramento County Superior Court on January 26, 2018. See ECF No. 1 at 8 58-61. The Affidavit appears to have been submitted for filing in two criminal cases, including 9 Case No. 17FE001757. Petitioner relies on this Affidavit in an attempt to denounce or relinquish 10 his “former” name, i.e. the “ficticious entity” (“legal fiction/legal person/legal entity”) “Loureece 11 Stone Clark ©,” and all legal matters associated with that entity, including his recent conviction 12 and the Abstract of Judgment that bears the name “Loureece Stone Clark” without the “©.” 13 Petitioner seeks to now proceed only as “Loureece Stone of the family Clark a living and 14 breathing man,” with no legal obligations or encumbrances. Petitioner relies on California Code 15 of Civil Procedure §§ 1085 & 1086, authorizing the issuance of state writs, and California case 16 law. ECF No. 1 at 4-5. 17 Even if petitioner’s Affidavit were enforceable, this court is without jurisdiction to enforce 18 state law. Nor does the petition contain any basis for federal jurisdiction. Federal habeas 19 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 lies for challenges to state court criminal judgments “only on 20 the ground that [the petitioner] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of 21 the United States.” The contention that petitioner was convicted in state court under a legally 22 fictitious identity does not implicate any federal constitutional right or otherwise suggest any 23 cognizable federal habeas claim. Nor is the All Writs Act helpful to petitioner. The Act 24 authorizes federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their jurisdictions 25 and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Because this court does 26 not have jurisdiction over petitioner’s claims, it is without authority to exercise discretion under 27 the All Writs Act. 28 //// 3 1 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 7, is granted; and 3 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a district judge to this action. 4 Additionally, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this 5 6 action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 8 after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 9 objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 10 Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 11 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 12 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 13 DATED: April 9, 2019 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
