Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-03419/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-03419-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMY LEE DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-03419-PJH 

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH 

PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 17, 19

Pending before the court is plaintiff Jimmy Lee Davis’s amended complaint. 

Because plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed in this action in forma pauperis 

(“IFP”) (Dkt. 5), the court reviews his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That 

review “accords judges . . . the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual 

allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly 

baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992) (“a finding of factual 

frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the 

wholly incredible”) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). “[C]laims 

describing fantastic or delusional scenarios” are clearly baseless. Id. 

On August 13, 2019, this court dismissed plaintiff’s original complaint as frivolous, 

with leave to amend. Dkt. 15. That order described plaintiff’s original complaint, which 

alleged a fantastic or delusional wide-ranging conspiracy between the mayor of San 

Francisco, her son, the FBI, the SWAT Team, Magistrate Judge Beeler, and others to 

defraud and murder him. See id. On August 22, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended 

complaint, naming the City of San Francisco as the sole defendant. Dkt. 17. On 

Case 4:19-cv-03419-PJH Document 23 Filed 12/13/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

September 11, 2019, plaintiff made another filing, without a caption, claiming to be a 

paper “amending his complaint in the above captioned case[.]” Dkt. 19. Because plaintiff 

amended his complaint on August 22, plaintiff’s attempt to file a second amended 

complaint without leave of court was improper. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). 

Accordingly, the first amended complaint filed on August 22 is the operative complaint in 

this action, and the court hereby STRIKES the filing located at Docket Number 19.

The operative, first amended complaint brought against the City of San Francisco 

repeats the same allegations underlying plaintiff’s previously-dismissed complaint. See

Dkt. 17. He again alleges that Mayor Breed, the SWAT Team, and others “did fire upon 

him from downtown San Francisco to Bayview and Fillmore Districts – in an attempt to 

assassinate and intimidate him with lethal weapons[.]” Id. at 1–2. The complaint 

continues, largely through invective, to allege the same type of vague, wide-ranging 

conspiracy that formed the basis of his original complaint. Simply put, the amended 

complaint is little-changed from the original, and it is frivolous for the same reasons. 

Rather than addressing these problems, which the court identified in its order 

dismissing the original complaint with leave to amend, plaintiff instead argues that his 

original complaint was correct, and that characterizing it as “delusional” was racist and 

disrespectful. Id.

Given that plaintiff has had ample opportunity to amend his complaint, and 

because he has not demonstrated any likelihood that he could allege facts stating a nonfrivolous claim even if given further opportunity, this action is DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2019

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-03419-PJH Document 23 Filed 12/13/19 Page 2 of 2