Freitas v. McKinney

Background

The court had previously dismissed John B. Freitas’s original complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a screening provision for complaints filed without prepaying the filing fee, but allowed him to amend. The court had explained that it lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which generally prevents a federal district court from reviewing alleged errors in a state-court judgment. It also explained that the County of Alameda was an improper defendant because state-court judges, including Patrick R. McKinney, are not county employees; that the Eleventh Amendment barred Freitas’s suit against the State of California; and that judicial immunity protected McKinney from Freitas’s claims.

Freitas timely filed an amended complaint. The court found that the amended complaint did not cure the problems identified in the earlier order. It continued to raise claims that were tied to what Freitas alleged were unlawful state-court proceedings. The court also found that the amended complaint did not overcome the Eleventh Amendment bar, McKinney’s judicial immunity, or the County of Alameda’s status as an improper defendant.

Ruling

The court dismissed the case with prejudice because Freitas had already received one opportunity to amend and further amendment appeared futile. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the file.

The court additionally found that Freitas’s complaint was frivolous, meaning it had no arguable basis in fact or law. It certified that, if Freitas appealed the dismissal, the appeal would not be taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The court stated that Freitas could seek permission from the Court of Appeals to appeal without paying the filing fee and directed the Clerk to send the order to the Ninth Circuit.