Freitas v. Wise

Background

Pro se plaintiff John B. Freitas filed a complaint and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. He sued a California superior court judge, Alameda County, and the State of California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging due-process and equal-protection violations, among other claims. The complaint appeared to arise from a residential foreclosure matter, but the court found that the complaint—more than 100 pages including attachments—was not entirely clear.

Freitas stated that he was unemployed, paid $800 in monthly expenses, and received $1,000 per month in Social Security benefits as his sole income. The court found that he met the financial requirements to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Screening of the Complaint

Because Freitas was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court applied the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Although courts read self-represented complaints generously, the plaintiff must still follow basic pleading rules and allege facts supporting a plausible claim.

The court concluded that the complaint did not meet that standard. It dismissed the complaint but allowed Freitas to file an amended complaint by May 9, 2022.

Claims Against the State Court Judge

The court held that the state court judge was absolutely immune from suit for judicial acts performed within her official duties, unless she acted outside her judicial role or without any jurisdiction. The court said that nothing in the record suggested either exception. It also stated that judges are immune from damages claims and that § 1983 allows injunctions against judicial officers only in extremely limited circumstances that were not present here.

Claims Against California and Alameda County

The court stated that the State of California is not a “person” who can be sued under § 1983. As to Alameda County, the complaint did not plausibly allege that a county policy or established practice caused the claimed constitutional violations, as required for county liability under § 1983.

Other Rulings

The court denied Freitas’s request for judicial notice and stated that it did not consider the materials submitted with that request. It terminated Freitas’s three motions for default judgment as moot. The court also warned that his filings did not comply with local rules or the judge’s standing orders and that future nonconforming filings could be summarily terminated without further consideration. The order did not authorize adding new parties without prior court permission.