Ozim v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Daisy Ozim applied to proceed without paying the filing fee, and the court granted that application. The court then screened her complaint under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a statute requiring courts to review certain complaints filed by people who cannot pay filing fees.

Ozim alleged that San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Matt Haney collaborated with two assailants to “gangstalk, silence, and murder” her. She alleged that Haney acted because she demanded that he deny slander she said he had made about her or face legal action. She also alleged that District Attorney Chesa Boudin and City Attorney Dennis Herrera blocked her emails when she sought an investigation, and that the San Francisco Police Department and other authorities ignored her requests.

In an earlier order, the court found those factual allegations baseless, dismissed the complaint, and allowed Ozim to amend if she could plead fact-based support for her claims. Ozim filed a first amended complaint before the court reviewed it. She also appealed the earlier order, but the Ninth Circuit dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the first amended complaint did not cure the deficiency identified in the earlier order. It said the amended pleading relied on a materially similar theory: that Haney collaborated with two other assailants and facilitated attempts to murder Ozim because she threatened legal or public action concerning the alleged slander. The court observed that many, if not most, of the allegations were copied from the original complaint.

The amended complaint also repeated the allegations that Herrera and Boudin blocked Ozim and that authorities largely ignored her efforts to have Haney investigated. Ozim added San Francisco Mayor London Breed as a defendant without seeking the court’s permission, even though the earlier order had required leave of court for that change. The court stated that the allegations concerning Breed did not change the basic theory and instead reinforced its view that the allegations were baseless.

The court explained that factual contentions are “clearly baseless” when they are irrational, wholly incredible, or describe fantastic or delusional scenarios. It found that Ozim had chosen to stand by the factually deficient allegations rather than identify a cognizable factual basis for her claims. Relying on that failure, the court determined that no further opportunity to amend was warranted.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the action with prejudice under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The opinion does not identify a separate ruling on individual claims; its ruling dismissed the action after the court’s screening review.