Freitas v. McKinney
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-08681
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Freitas v. McKinney, Judge Tigar granted a fee waiver but dismissed the complaint for jurisdictional and immunity barriers, allowing amendment.
John B. Freitas’s complaint was dismissed, but he was given 30 days to amend. Patrick R. McKinney II, the State of California, and the County of Alameda were named defendants; the court found jurisdictional or immunity barriers to the claims against them.
What happened
John B. Freitas sued Patrick R. McKinney II, the State of California, and Alameda County. He sought to overturn a foreclosure sale and challenged actions connected with his state-court case. Freitas asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court granted that request but dismissed the complaint during its required screening. It said federal courts cannot review state-court judgments or issues closely tied to them, Alameda County was not a proper defendant for claims involving a state court judge, the State of California was protected from the suit by the Eleventh Amendment, and McKinney was protected by judicial immunity.
The court dismissed the complaint but allowed Freitas 30 days to file an amended complaint addressing the identified problems. Judge Jon S. Tigar warned that failing to amend or otherwise comply would result in dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b).
The detailed version
- Freitas v. McKinney · No. 4:21-cv-08681
- Jon Tigar
- Nov. 24, 2021
Background
John B. Freitas applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning he asked to bring the federal case without prepaying filing fees. The court found that his assets and income were insufficient to pay those fees and granted the application.
Freitas sued Alameda County Superior Court Judge Patrick R. McKinney II, the State of California, and the County of Alameda. The opinion says he sought to overturn what he characterized as a wrongful foreclosure sale and challenged McKinney’s actions during his state-court matter.
Reasons for Dismissal
The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine prevents a federal district court from acting as an appeals court over a state-court judgment. The court said Freitas’s claims asked it to review the state court’s decisions and procedures, and that the federal claims were closely tied to issues resolved by the state court.
The court also gave separate reasons why the named defendants could not be sued on these claims. It treated California Superior Court judges as state officials rather than county officials and therefore held that Alameda County was an improper defendant. It held that the Eleventh Amendment barred Freitas’s suit against the State of California in federal court.
Finally, the court held that McKinney’s alleged conduct was protected by judicial immunity. The court explained that this protection covers judicial acts even when a judge allegedly acted mistakenly, beyond his authority, improperly, maliciously, or corruptly. It also said allegations of a conspiracy to interfere with access to the courts did not defeat that immunity.
Disposition
The court dismissed Freitas’s complaint for all of these reasons. It allowed him to file an amended complaint within 30 days that addressed the deficiencies identified in the order. The opinion does not state that the current dismissal is with prejudice. It does state that failure to amend or otherwise comply with the order would result in dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), meaning Freitas would not be allowed to pursue the claims raised in this complaint any further.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.