Phelps v. Oakland Riders
- James Donato
- 3:24-cv-00571
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Phelps v. Oakland Riders, Judge Donato granted a fee waiver but dismissed the complaint for failing to state a plausible claim, allowing amendment.
Briggett Phelps’s lawsuit was dismissed, although she was allowed to file an amended complaint by March 1, 2024. The named defendants were not required to respond to the dismissed complaint under this order.
What happened
In Phelps v. Oakland Riders, Briggett Phelps, who was representing herself, sued the Oakland Riders, police departments, court personnel, and others. She asked to proceed without paying the filing fee and submitted a notice about a memorial service.
The court found that Phelps’s financial condition excused the filing fee. But it said the complaint was difficult to understand and did not present a valid legal claim. The allegations involved police surveillance, requests to revive earlier cases, discrimination, and alleged wrongdoing by courts and court personnel.
The court dismissed the case but allowed Phelps to file an amended complaint by March 1, 2024. Judge Donato said that failing to amend by that date would lead to dismissal and entry of judgment.
The detailed version
- Phelps v. Oakland Riders · No. 3:24-cv-00571
- James Donato
- Feb. 7, 2024
Background
Briggett Phelps, appearing without a lawyer, sued the Oakland Riders, the Oakland Police Department, the Novato Police Department, a Bar Association, a clerk who assisted her on January 9, 2024, and the Courts. She applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court found that her financial condition excused payment of the fee.
Phelps also filed a notice attaching programs from a December memorial service for another individual. The civil cover sheet identified a claim for “24hr harassment from law enforcement” through “GPS.” The complaint alleged that courts were improperly shielding a police officer from liability, asked the court to “pick up the 2 wrongfully dropped cases,” and also alleged discrimination and impropriety in the court system.
Reasons for Dismissal
The court said the complaint was difficult to understand even when read generously because Phelps was representing herself. It concluded that the allegations, to the extent they could be understood, did not state a legally recognizable claim.
The court said the allegations about 24-hour police surveillance were frivolous and dismissed those allegations. It also rejected Phelps’s request to reopen prior cases, explaining that a similar complaint filed in a prior related proceeding, No. 23-cv-05305-SI (N.D. Cal.), had been dismissed and judgment had been entered against her. The court said Phelps could not challenge those earlier judgments by filing a new lawsuit based on the same factual allegations.
As to alleged wrongdoing in the court system, the court said judges and court staff are generally protected from liability for judicial actions taken within their authority. It also found that the complaint did not allege facts that would make the claims against court personnel plausible.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint because it failed to state a plausible legal claim. This was a screening dismissal of a complaint filed by a person allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court allowed Phelps to file an amended complaint by March 1, 2024. It stated that failure to amend by that deadline would result in dismissal and entry of judgment under Rule 41(b). Judge James Donato signed the order on February 7, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.