Davis v. Saul
- James Donato
- 3:20-cv-05805
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Davis v. Saul, Judge Donato granted IFP status but dismissed the complaints for failing to state a plausible claim and closed the case.
Jimmy Lee Davis’s case was closed after the court dismissed his complaints; the court granted his request to proceed without paying the filing fee but required prior approval for any further filings.
What happened
In Davis v. Saul, pro se plaintiff Jimmy Lee Davis applied to proceed without paying filing fees and sued Social Security Administration Commissioner Andrew M. Saul and others. Davis said a conspiracy involving San Francisco’s mayor, her son, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and a “hit team” had deprived him of retroactive Social Security payments.
The court found that Davis’s original and amended complaints did not plausibly state a legal claim. Although Davis was allowed to proceed without paying fees, the court said his allegations were largely incomprehensible and that the amended complaint’s reference to a civil-rights law did not fix the problem. The court also noted that he had already tried twice to state a claim in this case and had pursued similar allegations in an earlier related case.
Judge Donato dismissed the complaints, declined to allow another amendment, closed the case, and terminated the other pending motions and requests as moot. The court also said that Davis could not file anything further without the court’s prior approval.
The detailed version
- Davis v. Saul · No. 3:20-cv-05805
- James Donato
- Jan. 13, 2021
Background
Pro se plaintiff Jimmy Lee Davis sued Social Security Administration Commissioner Andrew M. Saul and others. Davis also applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the court’s filing fee. He stated that he was unemployed and received $1,000 per month in government benefits.
Davis’s complaint described an alleged conspiracy involving the mayor of San Francisco, her son, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and a “hit team.” He alleged that the conspiracy deprived him of “SSA Retroactive pay.” In an amended complaint, he referred to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, and included additional statements and epithets that the court said had no place in federal pleadings.
Court’s analysis
The court granted Davis’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee because he met the financial requirements. The court then screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute allows dismissal of an IFP complaint at any time if it is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The court applied the same failure-to-state-a-claim standard used for a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Although the court was required to read Davis’s pro se filings liberally, he still had to provide enough factual allegations to state a plausible claim.
The court concluded that the complaints did not plausibly allege a claim. It also considered whether Davis should receive another opportunity to amend. The court noted that he had already tried twice in this case and that an earlier related case involving similar allegations had been dismissed. The court further noted the earlier court’s description of the conspiracy allegations as “far-fetched” and “conclusory,” as well as the statement that Davis had filed at least 30 cases in the district by 2019 that had been dismissed for failure to prosecute or failure to state a claim.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaints and did not allow further amendment. It ordered the case closed and terminated all other pending motions and requests as moot. The court also advised Davis that no further filings of any sort would be permitted without prior court approval. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.