Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02904/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02904-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 11cv2904

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN PAUL FREITAG,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv2904-LAB (WMc)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs. WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

SAN DIEGO CITY ATTORNEY ,

MICHAEL S. GIORGINO,

Defendant.

On December 13, 2011, Plaintiff Freitag filed his one-page complaint in this action,

naming two attorneys as Defendants. On December 16, the Court issued an order denying

Freitag’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis and to appoint counsel for him, and

dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

That same day, Freitag submitted an ex parte application requesting a hearing on his

motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which is being rejected by discrepancy order. On

December 19, he submitted a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying him

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, denying him appointed counsel, and dismissing the

complaint. That motion is being accepted for filing by a separate discrepancy order, but the

very well-worn police reports Freitag attached to it are being returned to him.

Regardless of whether the Court construes this motion as a motion pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 59 or 60, it must be denied. The motion and the police reports show that Freitag

Case 3:11-cv-02904-LAB-WMC Document 9 Filed 01/04/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 11cv2904

was involved in an altercation with three men near the harbor in San Diego. The three men

accused him of attacking them with a knife, which Freitag now denies. One of the men

apparently placed or tried to place Freitag under citizen’s arrest. Police apparently

disbelieved Freitag and instead believed witnesses. Freitag alleges he was prosecuted for

this and pleaded guilty.

By way of an attempt at explanation, Freitag alleges that the police officers were dock

workers from the Connecticut Department of Corrections, that the Hell’s Angels were

somehow behind the fight, that he was falsely accused in another incident at a Ralph’s

grocery store that he believes is related to this one, and that police were involved in some

problems he had with social security.

There is no claim here that the Court would have jurisdiction over. Freitag is not in

custody and therefore cannot obtain habeas relief. He cannot directly appeal his state court

conviction in this Court. The police officers, even assuming they were named as

Defendants, did not violate any of Freitag’s federal rights. The San Diego City Attorney,

whom Freitag now accuses of improperly prosecuting him, is absolutely immune. See

generally Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). Concerning any claim Freitag might

have against the three men, the Court would have no jurisdiction over it. They were not

acting under color of state law, and no federal question is presented. The pleadings also

make clear the parties are not diverse. And no other basis for the Court’s exercise of

jurisdiction appears in the complaint or any other pleading.

Because the complaint remains dismissed, there is no reason to reconsider the denial

of in forma pauperis status or appointment of counsel. The motion for reconsideration is

therefore DENIED. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Clerk

is directed to close the docket. No additional filings will be accepted in this closed docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 3, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02904-LAB-WMC Document 9 Filed 01/04/12 Page 2 of 2