Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-03419/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-03419-1/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 ADOPTING MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE'S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND 

DISMISSING CASE WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND

Re: Dkt. Nos. 6, 11, 12, 13

The court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero's Report and 

Recommendation Re: Review of Complaint Under 28 USC Section 1915, as well as

plaintiff’s objections to the report and other, subsequent filings. The court finds the report 

correct, well-reasoned and thorough, and adopts it in every respect. Accordingly, the 

case is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

1

In particular, the court emphasizes that a complaint filed in forma pauperis is 

reviewed 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. 

 

1 Plaintiff’s July 25, 2019 filing entitled “Complaint” is hereby STRICKEN. See Dkt. 13. 

Plaintiff appears to have attempted to amend his complaint while Magistrate Judge 

Spero’s Report and Recommendation was pending. Nevertheless, plaintiff’s attempt to 

amend his complaint did not fix the problems Magistrate Judge Spero’s Report and 

Recommendation identified. Plaintiff’s “Motion to Avert Dismissal” (Dkt. 12) is considered 

as part of plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with 

Dkt. 11.

Case 4:19-cv-03419-PJH Document 15 Filed 08/13/19 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

319, 327 (1989)). “[C]laims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios” are clearly 

baseless. Id. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a wide-ranging conspiracy between the mayor 

of San Francisco, her son, FBI agents, the SWAT Team, the District Attorney of San 

Francisco, Magistrate Judge Beeler, plaintiff’s ex-fiancé, the Jewish Defense League, 

and others to—among other things—shoot at him on San Francisco public streets from 

roof tops and public transportation, armed with both live ammunition and pellet guns. 

Dkt. 1 at ECF pp. 4–5; Dkt. 11 at ECF p. 4; Dkt. 12 at ECF p. 2; Dkt. 13 at ECF pp. 1–2. 

Accordingly, under this court’s review compelled by 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the action is 

frivolous and is DISMISSED. See generally Burgess v. Bank of Credit & Commerce Int'l, 

996 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir. 1993).

Any amended complaint shall be filed no later than September 13, 2019.

No additional parties may be added to the amended complaint without leave of court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2019

_________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-03419-PJH Document 15 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 2