Harper v. Lin
- Kandis Westmore
- 3:25-cv-09488
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Patrick Roy Harper v. Rita Lin, Chief Judge Seeborg dismissed Harper’s claims against two federal judges with prejudice because they could not succeed.
Patrick Roy Harper’s case was dismissed with prejudice; the action named Rita Lin and another federal district court judge as defendants.
What happened
Patrick Roy Harper, representing himself, sued Rita Lin and another federal district judge. He sought an order requiring an immediate admiralty trial and alleged violations involving federal jurisdiction, the Constitution, fraud on the court, and “hate crimes.”
The court said these claims were identical to claims Harper had raised in an earlier related case. It also said Harper acknowledged that his demand arose from earlier district court proceedings and that judges are generally protected from personal liability for judicial acts.
Chief Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed the case with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint cannot support a valid claim for relief. The court concluded that Harper could not succeed.
The detailed version
- Harper v. Lin · No. 3:25-cv-09488
- Kandis Westmore
- Nov. 6, 2025
Background
Patrick Roy Harper, who was representing himself, brought ill-defined claims against two federal district court judges. The court stated that the claims were identical to claims Harper had presented in an earlier related proceeding. Harper sought an “injunction to proceed immediately to an admiralty bench trial.” His filing alleged violations of 28 U.S.C. § 1916, the Supremacy Clause, and Article III of the Constitution, along with fraud on the court and “hate crimes.”
Court’s reasoning
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally viable claim for relief. It explained that a trial court may dismiss such a claim without waiting for a defendant’s motion or giving advance notice when the claimant cannot possibly obtain relief. The court stated that, even if Harper’s allegations could be treated as legally recognized claims, he could not succeed because he conceded that his demand arose from proceedings in prior district court adjudications. The court also cited judicial immunity, which generally protects a judge from liability for performing judicial acts.
Disposition
Chief Judge Richard Seeborg ordered that the civil action be dismissed with prejudice. The opinion does not describe any claims as surviving or authorize refiling.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.