Peter Vu v. Sfpd

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PETER VU, No. 21-15619
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:20-cv-04579-JSW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SAN FRANCISCO POLICE
DEPARTMENT; CITY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation;
WILLIAM SCOTT, Officer; as an individual
in his official capacity as a Police Chief of
San Francisco Police Department;
NICHOLAS RAINSFORD, Officer; as an
individual in his official capacity as an
officer of San Francisco Police Department;
ZUROSKI, First name unknown; Officer; as
an individual in his official capacity as an
officer of San Francisco Police Department;
E. ROBERTS, Officer; as an individual in
his official capacity as an officer of San
Francisco Police Department,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Peter Vu appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection violation.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.
2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Vu’s action because Vu failed to allege
facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021,
1030 (9th Cir. 2013) (“To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a plaintiff must show
that the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the
plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010)
(although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must allege facts
sufficient to state a plausible claim).
AFFIRMED.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2 21-15619