Hutchinson v. San Francisco Police Department

Background

Leonna Hutchinson filed a complaint against the San Francisco Police Department and San Francisco Fire Department, along with an application to proceed without paying filing fees. She alleged that the departments installed cameras throughout her home, recorded her showering and being raped, posted the recordings as pornography on Pornhub and Pornhub Live, filmed her spiritual transformation and posted it on YouTube, and used “magic and sorcery.” She also alleged that her children were murdered in spiritual warfare. She sought $5 billion and destruction of all copies of the videos.

Fee-waiver application

The court granted Hutchinson’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. The court found that her submitted financial information showed she could not afford the costs of the action.

Screening of the complaint

Because Hutchinson was allowed to proceed without paying fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). That statute requires dismissal before service if a complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court explained that the failure-to-state-a-claim standard is the same as the standard used for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and that the complaint also had to provide a short and plain statement of the claim under Rule 8.

The court concluded that Hutchinson’s allegations were frivolous. It explained that a complaint is frivolous when it lacks a reasonable basis in law or fact, including allegations describing irrational, wholly incredible, or delusional scenarios. Applying that standard, the court found that the allegations about cameras, sexual abuse recordings, online sales, and spiritual warfare went beyond implausibility and were frivolous. The court therefore recommended that the complaint be dismissed without leave to amend.

Recommendation and next steps

Because not all parties had consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, the clerk was directed to reassign the case to a district judge. The dismissal was a recommendation, not the final district-judge disposition stated in this opinion. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, any party could file objections within 14 days after being served. The opinion stated that failing to object within that period could waive the right to appeal the district court’s order.