McGee v. Santa Clara County District Attorney Office
- Charles Breyer
- 3:24-cv-02608
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Anthony McGee v. Santa Clara County District Attorney Office, Judge Breyer denied McGee’s motion to set aside the judgment.
Anthony McGee, whose motion to vacate the judgment was denied; the defendants, against whom the case had previously been dismissed with prejudice, were not affected by any change because the judgment remained in place.
What happened
In Anthony McGee v. Santa Clara County District Attorney Office, the court had previously dismissed McGee’s case with prejudice and entered judgment against him.
McGee asked the court to vacate the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, arguing that the judgment was void or resulted from mistake or another reason justifying relief. The court found that he repeated arguments from his complaint and did not show a basis for undoing the judgment.
Judge Breyer denied the motion. The judgment therefore remained in place, and the court’s earlier conclusion that immunity barred McGee’s claims was not changed.
The detailed version
- McGee v. Santa Clara County District Attorney Office · No. 3:24-cv-02608
- Charles Breyer
- Aug. 31, 2026
Background
The court said it had previously adopted Judge DeMarchi’s Report and Recommendation and dismissed the case with prejudice. It then entered judgment against Anthony McGee.
Motion
McGee moved to vacate the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), which concerns void judgments, and alternatively under Rules 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6). Those provisions address mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and other reasons that justify relief.
McGee argued that the judgment was void because it relied on a purportedly dismissed juvenile-court petition that, in his view, had no legal significance. He repeated the same point in support of his alternative arguments.
Court’s reasoning
The court concluded that McGee had not shown a basis for relief under any of the Rule 60(b) provisions he cited. It said he merely rehashed allegations from his complaint and did not address the court’s earlier conclusion that immunity barred his claims. The court stated that the immunity doctrine would apply even if McGee were correct that his juvenile records had been obtained unlawfully.
Disposition
Judge Charles R. Breyer denied McGee’s motion for relief from judgment. The opinion does not identify the specific immunity doctrine beyond stating that it barred the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.