Harper v. Lin

N.D. California

Harper v. Lin

DecidedSeptember 29, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-08068

StatusUnknown

This text of Harper v. Lin (Harper v. Lin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harper v. Lin, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 PATRICK ROY HARPER, 10 Case No. 25-cv-08068-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 12 RITA F. LIN, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 16 Pro se Plaintiff Patrick Roy Harper’s ill-defined claims against two federal district court 17 judges are dismissed. A trial court may dismiss a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) sua sponte and 18 without notice “where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.” Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 19 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361–62 (9th Cir.1981); 5 C. 20 Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357 at 593 (1969)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 12(b)(6). 22 Plaintiff here seeks an “injunction to proceed immediately to an admiralty bench trial,” 23 averring violations of the jurisdictional statute 28 U.S.C. Section 1916, the Supremacy Clause, and 24 Article III of the Constitution as well as fraud on the court and “hate crimes.” Dkt. 1. Even if 25 Plaintiff’s averments gave rise to cognizable causes of action, Plaintiff cannot succeed because, as 26 he concedes, his “demand arises out of proceedings in” prior district court adjudications before the 27 Defendant judges and related appeals and petitions, Dkt. 1, and judges are entitled to absolute 1 Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 830 (9th Cir.1995). Since Plaintiff cannot succeed, the 2 above-captioned civil action is dismissed with prejudice. 3 4 || ITISSO ORDERED. 5 6 || Dated: September 29, 2025 4 RICHARD SEEBORG 8 Chief United States District Judge 9 10 11 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER OF DISMISSAL CASE No. 25-cv-08068-RS

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 PATRICK ROY HARPER, 10 Case No. 25-cv-08068-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 12 RITA F. LIN, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 16 Pro se Plaintiff Patrick Roy Harper’s ill-defined claims against two federal district court 17 judges are dismissed. A trial court may dismiss a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) sua sponte and 18 without notice “where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.” Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 19 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361–62 (9th Cir.1981); 5 C. 20 Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357 at 593 (1969)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 12(b)(6). 22 Plaintiff here seeks an “injunction to proceed immediately to an admiralty bench trial,” 23 averring violations of the jurisdictional statute 28 U.S.C. Section 1916, the Supremacy Clause, and 24 Article III of the Constitution as well as fraud on the court and “hate crimes.” Dkt. 1. Even if 25 Plaintiff’s averments gave rise to cognizable causes of action, Plaintiff cannot succeed because, as 26 he concedes, his “demand arises out of proceedings in” prior district court adjudications before the 27 Defendant judges and related appeals and petitions, Dkt. 1, and judges are entitled to absolute 1 Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 830 (9th Cir.1995). Since Plaintiff cannot succeed, the 2 above-captioned civil action is dismissed with prejudice. 3 4 || ITISSO ORDERED. 5 6 || Dated: September 29, 2025 4 RICHARD SEEBORG 8 Chief United States District Judge 9 10 11 12

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER OF DISMISSAL CASE No. 25-cv-08068-RS

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Harper v. Lin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-v-lin-cand-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack