Freitas v. Wise
- James Donato
- 3:21-cv-08176
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Freitas v. Wise, Judge Donato dismissed all claims with prejudice, denied judicial notice, and closed the case.
John B. Freitas and the defendants, including the California Superior Court judge, Alameda County, and the State of California named in the dismissed claims.
What happened
In Freitas v. Wise, John B. Freitas filed an amended complaint of more than 600 pages after the court allowed him to revise an earlier complaint. He represented himself.
The amended complaint repeated claims under a federal civil-rights law against a California Superior Court judge, Alameda County, and California. It also added a civil racketeering claim, but the court said the complaint did not provide the detailed allegations required for that type of claim.
Judge James Donato dismissed Counts I through IV and Count V with prejudice, denied Freitas’s request for judicial notice, closed the case, and said no further filings would be accepted without the court’s prior approval.
The detailed version
- Freitas v. Wise · No. 3:21-cv-08176
- James Donato
- Aug. 11, 2022
Background
The court previously granted John B. Freitas permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed his original complaint under the federal statute governing screening of complaints filed by people proceeding without paying court fees. The court allowed Freitas to amend. Freitas then filed an amended complaint exceeding 600 pages, including attachments.
Claims and Analysis
The court said that, to the limited extent the amended complaint was comprehensible, it repeated the allegations previously dismissed. Counts I through IV asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a California Superior Court judge, Alameda County, and the State of California. The court dismissed those counts with prejudice.
Count V asserted a civil claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962. The court explained that a plausible civil RICO claim must satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard and must include specific allegations concerning the alleged criminal enterprise, predicate criminal acts, injury, and causation. The court concluded that the amended complaint did not come close to alleging a legally cognizable RICO claim and dismissed Count V with prejudice.
Rulings
Judge James Donato denied the request for judicial notice filed at Docket No. 13. The case was closed, and the court ordered that no further filings would be accepted without prior court approval.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.