Patrick Roy Harper v. Rita Lin, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 6, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-09488
• Status: Unknown

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-09488-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 12 RITA 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 identical to his claims before this Court in Harper v. Lin, No. 25-cv-8068. For the same 18 reasons as there, his claims here are dismissed. A trial court may dismiss a claim under Rule 19 12(b)(6) sua sponte and without notice “where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.” Omar v. 20 Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361– 21 62 (9th Cir.1981); 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357 at 593 22 (1969)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 23 Plaintiff here seeks an “injunction to proceed immediately to an admiralty bench trial,” 24 averring violations of the jurisdictional statute 28 U.S.C. Section 1916, the Supremacy Clause, and 25 Article III of the Constitution as well as fraud on the court and “hate crimes.” Dkt. 1. Even if 26 Plaintiff’s averments gave rise to cognizable causes of action, Plaintiff cannot succeed because, as 27 he concedes, his “demand arises out of proceedings in” prior district court adjudications before the 1 immunity where a plaintiff seeks to hold a judge liable for performance of judicial acts. See 2 Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 830 (9th Cir.1995). Since Plaintiff cannot succeed, the 3 above-captioned civil action is dismissed with prejudice. 4 5 6 || ITISSO ORDERED. 4 8 Dated: November 6, 2025 9 ICHARD SEEBORG 10 Chief United States District Judge 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 98 ORDER OF DISMISSAL CASE No. 25-cv-09488-RS