1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LEONNA HUTCHINSON, Case No. 24-cv-06267-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

10 SAN FRANCISCO POLICE FORMA PAUPERIS DEPARTMENT, et al., 11 REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Defendants. 12

13 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Plaintiff Leonna Hutchinson initiated this lawsuit by filing a complaint (ECF No. 1) and 16 application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). For the reasons stated below, the Court 17 GRANTS the application but finds the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be 18 granted under

(e). As not all parties have consented to magistrate judge 19 jurisdiction pursuant to

(c), the Court requests this case be reassigned to a district 20 judge for disposition. The undersigned RECOMMENDS the complaint be DISMISSED 21 WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 22 II. BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiff brings this case against the San Francisco Police Department and San Francisco 24 Fire Department. She alleges they installed cameras in all areas of her home, includ[ing] but not 25 limited to my shower, kitchen, closets and main bedroom,” that she has been “captured on film 26 showering and being raped in the confines and assumed privacy of my own home,” and that these 27 films have been “recorded as porn and posted online to Pornhub and Pornhub Live.” Compl. at 3- 1 Pornhub and Pornhub Live” and “[m]y spiritual transformation has been filmed and posted on 2 YouTube.”

. She alleges these videos have generated $150 million.

. She also 3 alleges she has “been impregnated and my children murdered in spiritual warfare,”

, and 4 that “SFPD officers used magic and sorcery” to carry out the scheme.

. Plaintiff demands 5 the Court order the police and fire departments to pay her $5,000,000,000 and that all copies of the 6 videos be destroyed.

. 7 III. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION 8 A district court may authorize the start of a civil action in forma pauperis if the court is 9 satisfied the would-be plaintiff cannot pay the filling fees required to pursue the lawsuit. See 28

(a)(1). Plaintiff submitted the required documentation demonstrating an inability to 11 pay the costs of this action, and it is evident from the application that her assets and income are 12 insufficient to enable payment of the fees. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 13 application. 14 IV. SUA SPONTE SCREENING UNDER

(e)(2) 15 A. Legal Standard 16 A court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service of process if it “(i) is 17 frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks 18 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”

(e)(2)(i)- 19 (iii). “The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which 20 relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter,

(9th Cir. 22 2012) (citation omitted). As such, the complaint must allege facts that plausibly establish each 23 defendant’s liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). “A claim has 24 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 25 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 26

(2009). In making this determination, the Court must “take as true all 27 allegations of material fact stated in the complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to 1 se plaintiff’s pleadings liberally and afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.”

(cleaned 2 up). However, the Court “may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially 3 pled.” Pena v. Gardner,

(9th Cir. 1992). 4 A complaint must also comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires the 5 complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 6 to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The failure to comply with Rule 8 is a basis for dismissal that is 7 not dependent on whether the complaint is without merit. McHenry v. Renne,

, 1179 8 (9th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, even claims which are not on their face subject to dismissal under 9 Rule 12(b)(6) may still be dismissed for violating Rule 8(a).

10 B. Application 11 The Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations are frivolous. “‘A complaint . . . is frivolous where 12 it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992) 13 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325). The definition of frivolousness “embraces not only the 14 arguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. 15 When determining whether to dismiss a complaint as “frivolous” under

1915(e)(2)(B)(i), the court has “ ‘the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual 17 allegations,’” meaning it “is not bound, as it usually is when making a determination based solely 18 on the pleadings, to accept without question the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations.” Denton, 504 19 U.S. at 32 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327). Frivolous claims include “‘claims describing 20 fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar.’” 21 Id. (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328). “An in forma pauperis complaint may not be dismissed . . . 22 simply because the court finds the plaintiff’s allegations unlikely.” Id. at 33. But “a finding of 23 factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the 24 wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict 25 them.” Id. As the Ninth Circuit has explained, frivolous litigation “is not limited to cases in 26 which a legal claim is entirely without merit . . . . [A] person with a measured legitimate claim 27 may cross the line into frivolous litigation by asserting facts that are grossly exaggerated or totally 1 Here, Plaintiffs allegations that the San Francisco Police and Fire Departments installed 2 || cameras in her home, filmed members of those departments raping her, filmed her dreams as porn, 3 sold the videos online for $150 million, and murdered her children in spiritual warfare □□□□□ further 4 || out on the spectrum past implausible and toward the delusional, and the undersigned finds that 5 they are frivolous.” Spitters v. Miceli,

, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2018), report 6 and recommendation adopted,

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018) (dismissing as 7 frivolous complaint where plaintiff alleged, among other things that defendant was a super-spy 8 || and an assassin who was using a fabricated identity to “get at” him). The Court also notes this is 9 one in a series of a similar cases Plaintiff has recently filed, in which she alleges defendants, 10 including Elon Musk, Governor Gavin Newsom, and various members of the San Francisco Police 11 and Fire Departments have videotaped her being sexually abused and posted the footage on 12 various websites. See Hutchinson v. Musk, 24-cv-04123-RFL; Hutchinson v. Brunson, 24-cv- 5 13 04124-AMO; Hutchinson v. Williams, 24-cv-06221-LB; Hutchinson v. Williams, 24-cv-06268- 14 || SK. Therefore, because Plaintiff's complaint is frivolous, the undersigned recommends it be 15 dismissed. 16 Vv. CONCLUSION 3 17 Based on the analysis above, the Court GRANTS the application to proceed in forma S 18 || pauperis. As not all parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 § 636(c), the Clerk of Court shall REASSIGN this case to a district judge, with the 20 || recommendation that the complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 21 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, any party may serve and file objections to 22 || this Report and Recommendation within 14 days after being served. Failure to file objections 23 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED. 25 26 Dated: September 9, 2024 27 AY \ - | 4 □ THOMAS S. HIXSON 28 United States Magistrate Judge