Fu v. Sullivan ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TONY FU, Case No. 18-cv-04668-JST 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: AMENDED COMPLAINT v. 9 Re: ECF No. 16 10 MATTHEW P. SULLIVAN, et al., Defendants. 11 12 13 Plaintiff Tony Fu, proceeding pro se, brings claims against Defendants Matthew P. 14 Sullivan and the City and County of San Francisco, stemming from an allegedly wrongful arrest. 15 ECF Nos. 1, 16. 16 Fu originally brought this lawsuit against Defendants Demas Yan, Thai Ming Chu, Tina 17 Yan, Mark Lapham, and Legal Recovery LLC. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 4-8. Magistrate Judge James 18 granted Fu’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 8. Judge James further 19 recommended that Fu’s complaint be dismissed with leave to amend because it failed to identify a 20 governmental actor to support his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. After the case was 21 reassigned, this Court adopted Judge James’s recommendation and dismissed with leave to amend. 22 ECF No. 12. 23 Fu’s amended complaint has cured this defect by naming a municipal official and a 24 municipality as defendants. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 690- 25 91 & n.55 (1978). Based on the allegations in Fu’s amended complaint, the Court sees no reason 26 to conclude at this time that the action is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which 27 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such 1 defendant may make upon appearing. 2 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk issue summons, and IT IS FURTHER 3 ORDERED that the U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of California serve, without 4 || prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint, any amendments, scheduling orders, attachments, 5 plaintiffs application, and this order upon the defendant. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: January 30, 2019 8 JON S. TIGAR 9 nited States District Judge 10 11 12 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28