Bates v. City Of San Jose

Background

Frederick Bates filed this lawsuit against the City of San Jose, Robert Davis, Adonna Amoroso, and Tuck Younis. The opinion states that Davis, Amoroso, and Younis remained unserved. Bates sought to bring an independent action in equity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 to set aside a judgment entered in an earlier federal lawsuit.

Bates identified three grounds for relief: alleged fraud by his attorney and the defendants’ attorneys in dismissing Younis by stipulation without Bates’s permission; an assertion that the earlier court improperly applied claim preclusion, also called res judicata; and allegations that judges in the earlier proceedings were biased in favor of the City. Bates relied on Rule 60, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, and the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

The opinion recounts several earlier lawsuits, motions, and appeals involving Bates’s allegations concerning the City and its officials. In the earlier federal case, a judge granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that the individual defendants had qualified immunity and that Bates’s claim against the City was barred by the earlier state-court judgment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The opinion also states that later motions and appeals concerning the alleged fraud, the application of claim preclusion, and judicial bias were rejected.

Motion to Dismiss

The City moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The City argued that all three of Bates’s theories were barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine. That doctrine generally prevents a court from reconsidering an issue already decided by the same court or a higher court in the same case.

The court agreed with the City. It explained that an independent action under Rule 60 is available only under a demanding standard and requires, among other things, a potentially meritorious claim or defense. The court found that Bates could not satisfy that requirement because each of his theories had already been considered and rejected in earlier proceedings. The court found no reason to depart from the earlier decisions: it determined that they were not clearly erroneous and that there had been no intervening change in law, substantially different evidence, changed circumstances, or manifest injustice.

The court also rejected Bates’s reliance on Turner v. Pleasant, finding that the unusual facts in that case were substantially different from the circumstances Bates alleged. The court concluded that amendment would be futile because Bates’s arguments had been rejected multiple times. It therefore granted the City’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend as to claims against the City.

Vexatious-Litigant and Pre-Filing Order

The City also asked the court to declare Bates a vexatious litigant and require him to obtain permission before filing future actions against the City, its officials or employees, and judicial officers. A pre-filing order restricts future filings by requiring judicial review before the clerk accepts them. The court applied the four requirements identified in De Long v. Hennessey: notice and an opportunity to object, an adequate record, findings that the filings were frivolous or harassing, and a narrowly tailored restriction.

The court found that Bates received notice and opposed the requested restriction in writing and at the hearing. It found that the record adequately described his lawsuits, motions, and five appeals to the Ninth Circuit. The court further found that his litigation campaign was frivolous and harassing, citing repeated and duplicative filings, allegations of judicial bias, the burden on the City and the courts, and Bates’s statement that the litigation would not end if judgment was not entered in his favor.

The court determined that requiring pre-filing review was the appropriate and sufficiently narrow remedy. The restriction covers lawsuits or other actions alleging claims against the City of San Jose, its officers or employees, or judicial officers. The order applies to actions filed in the district, state-court actions removed to the district, and claims or other actions filed in adversary proceedings in the district’s bankruptcy court.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that Bates’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice as to the City of San Jose. The court declared Bates a vexatious litigant and ordered that he obtain leave of court before filing any covered lawsuit or other action. The clerk may not accept a covered filing until a judge reviews and approves it. The opinion does not state a disposition of claims against Davis, Amoroso, or Younis.