Daisy Ozim v. City and County of San Franci ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAISY OZIM, No. 21-15099
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:20-cv-05465-PJH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Daisy Ozim appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as
frivolous her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a conspiracy. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court properly dismissed as frivolous Ozim’s action because
Ozim’s allegation that a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
conspired with two assailants to murder Ozim lacked any arguable basis in law or
fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (concluding that a
frivolous claim “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact” and that “[the]
term ‘frivolous’ . . . embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the
fanciful factual allegation”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend
because it had granted Ozim leave to amend an identical complaint in a related
action and Ozim did not cure the deficiencies. See Cervantes v. Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of
review); Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir.
2009) (“[W]here the plaintiff has previously been granted leave to amend and has
subsequently failed to add the requisite particularity to its claims, the district
court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad.” (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
Ozim’s motion for permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (Docket
Entry No. 4) is denied as unnecessary because her IFP status continues on appeal.
The Clerk is directed to file the opening brief at Docket Entry No. 3.
AFFIRMED.
2 21-15099