Ozim v. City & County of San Francisco

Background

Daisy Ozim applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that application and reviewed her complaint under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which requires screening of such complaints. Ozim alleged that San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Matt Haney collaborated with two assailants to “gangstalk, silence, and murder” her. She alleged that this occurred after she demanded that Haney correct alleged slander or faced taking legal action. She also alleged that District Attorney Chesa Boudin and City Attorney Dennis Herrera blocked her emails and that other authorities ignored her requests to investigate Haney.

In an earlier order, the court found the complaint’s factual contentions baseless, dismissed the complaint, and allowed Ozim to amend if she could provide fact-based allegations supporting her claims. Ozim appealed that order, but the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. She then filed a first amended complaint.

Amended Complaint

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

The amended complaint also repeated the allegations about Boudin and Herrera blocking Ozim and about authorities failing to investigate Haney. Ozim added San Francisco Mayor London Breed as a defendant, but the court found that addition improper because Ozim had not sought the required permission to add a new defendant. The court also stated that the allegations concerning Breed did not change the central theory and instead reinforced its conclusion that the allegations were baseless.

Ruling

The court explained that factual allegations are “clearly baseless” when they are irrational, wholly incredible, fantastic, or describe delusional scenarios. It found that Ozim had chosen to stand by the factually deficient allegations and had not supplied a cognizable factual basis for her claims. Relying in part on precedent stating that no amendment is warranted when an action is frivolous or malicious, the court concluded that further amendment was not warranted.

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that the action be dismissed with prejudice under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The opinion’s footnote states that the second listed case involved a duplicate of the original complaint.