Freitas v. Wise
- James Donato
- 3:21-cv-08176
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Freitas v. Wise, Judge Donato revoked Freitas’s fee-waiver status after finding his appeal frivolous based on previously dismissed claims.
John B. Freitas’s ability to proceed with his appeal without paying court fees was affected. The order also concerned claims Freitas had brought against Noel Wise, other defendants, a California superior court judge, and Alameda County, but it did not decide the appeal itself.
What happened
In Freitas v. Wise, John B. Freitas appealed after the court dismissed his claims against a California superior court judge, Alameda County, and other defendants arising from a residential foreclosure matter. The court had given him an opportunity to amend, but his 600-page amended complaint largely repeated the same allegations.
The court said the civil-rights claims lacked a plausible legal or factual basis. It also dismissed Freitas’s new racketeering claim because the allegations did not satisfy federal pleading rules or plausibly establish the elements of a civil racketeering claim. The court had dismissed all of those claims with prejudice.
Judge James Donato found that the appeal was frivolous because Freitas’s claims had no arguable basis in fact or law. He revoked Freitas’s status for proceeding without paying court fees and directed the clerk to send the order to the Ninth Circuit.
The detailed version
- Freitas v. Wise · No. 3:21-cv-08176
- James Donato
- Sept. 1, 2022
Background
The Ninth Circuit referred a limited question to the district court: whether John B. Freitas’s previously granted status for proceeding without paying court fees should continue, or whether his appeal was frivolous or taken in bad faith. Under the rules and statutes cited by the court, a person may proceed with an appeal without paying fees only if the appeal is taken in good faith. An appeal is not in good faith when it presents no issue with an arguable basis in fact or law.
Claims and Earlier Orders
Freitas had sued a California superior court judge, Alameda County, and other defendants over alleged violations connected with a residential foreclosure matter. The court said its first order dismissed the complaint because a state is not a person under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Freitas had not plausibly alleged a claim against a sitting judge, and he had not plausibly alleged that Alameda County engaged in a pattern or practice of misconduct for purposes of a Section 1983 claim.
After the court allowed an amendment, Freitas filed a 600-page amended complaint. The court found that, to the extent it could understand the pleading, it repeated the same deficient allegations without meaningful additions or changes. The court then dismissed all of the Section 1983 claims with prejudice.
The amended complaint also asserted a racketeering claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute, commonly called RICO. The court found that claim’s allegations conclusory and wholly speculative, that they fell short of the pleading requirements in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 9(b), and that they did not plausibly allege the essential elements of a civil RICO claim. The court dismissed that claim with prejudice because amendment would not cure the deficiencies.
Ruling
Judge James Donato concluded that, despite multiple opportunities to amend, Freitas had not stated any claim with an arguable basis in fact or law. The court found the appeal frivolous, revoked Freitas’s status for proceeding without paying fees, and requested that the clerk forward the order to the Ninth Circuit in Case No. 22-16314.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.