Davis v. Breed
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:19-cv-03419
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Davis v. City of San Francisco, District Judge Hamilton denied Davis’s request to reopen the dismissed case.
Jimmy Lee Davis, whose request to reopen or change the judgment was denied; the City of San Francisco remained the defendant in the dismissed case.
What happened
In Jimmy Lee Davis v. City of San Francisco, Davis filed a complaint without a lawyer and later filed an amended complaint. The court dismissed the original complaint with permission to amend, then dismissed the amended claims with prejudice as duplicative and frivolous and entered judgment.
Davis later sent the court a letter making allegations about social-security benefits, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Anti-Defamation League. The court treated the letter as a request under a federal rule that allows a final judgment to be set aside in limited circumstances.
The court found that Davis gave no valid reason to change or reopen the judgment and denied the motion. District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton also stated that the court would entertain no further motions in the case.
The detailed version
- Davis v. Breed · No. 4:19-cv-03419
- Phyllis Hamilton
- May 11, 2020
Background
Jimmy Lee Davis filed a complaint without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. Magistrate Judge Spero granted that request and later found that many of Davis’s claims were delusional and that the complaint did not state a legal claim. The court adopted that recommendation and dismissed the complaint with permission to amend.
Davis filed an amended complaint naming the City of San Francisco as the only defendant. The court later found that the amended claims duplicated the original complaint and were frivolous for the same reasons. It ruled that further amendment would be futile, dismissed the claims with prejudice, and entered judgment.
Motion to Vacate the Judgment
Davis then filed a letter containing allegations concerning social-security benefits, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Anti-Defamation League. The letter also sought an order requiring an explanation for why an “equitable decree” had not been issued. Because Davis was representing himself, the court interpreted the filing as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits relief from a final judgment for specified reasons such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or other circumstances justifying relief.
The court concluded that Davis offered no legally recognizable reason to vacate or amend the judgment. It stated that the filings continued to repeat what it characterized as delusional and frivolous allegations and that Davis had not addressed the reasons previously given for dismissal, including the filing-fee and screening issues under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Ruling
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied the motion. The court stated that it would entertain no further motions in the case.
Disposition
The motion for relief from judgment was denied. The opinion does not reopen the case or alter the earlier judgment.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.