Naseri v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Zahir Naseri alleged that he had worked as a transportation-network-company driver for Uber and Lyft for more than nine years, including at San Francisco International Airport. He alleged that, on June 24, 2023, an airport enforcement officer and another staff member stopped him while he was driving for Uber, challenged the color of his Lyft placard, seized his Uber and Lyft placards and emblems, ordered him out of his car, and told him he was under arrest. He also alleged that the officer called him a “Middle Eastern driver.”

Naseri further alleged that, on June 24, 2024, an airport staff member contacted Uber and Lyft to have him and his vehicle permanently removed from the airport. He alleged that Lyft then permanently banned him and his vehicle from the airport, while Uber banned him from all California airports, without prior notice or an opportunity to contest the bans.

Naseri originally filed the case in San Francisco Superior Court. The City removed it to federal court because the complaint included federal claims. In his Third Amended Complaint, he asserted federal constitutional claims involving the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, and state and municipal claims.

Federal Claims

The City moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court explained that constitutional claims against a municipality must generally proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under the municipal-liability rule commonly called Monell, a plaintiff must allege that an official municipal policy, custom, practice, failure to train, or ratification caused the constitutional injury.

The court held that Naseri's allegations of a City policy or practice imposing disproportionate penalties, denying due process, and selectively imposing harsher penalties were conclusory. The Third Amended Complaint did not provide specific facts showing a policy, custom, or practice beyond Naseri's own experiences. The court also held that Naseri's allegations about inadequate training and supervision were insufficient because they did not establish a deliberately indifferent training policy or show that proper training would have prevented his alleged injuries.

The court therefore held that Naseri had not established municipal liability for his constitutional claims. It also held that 18 U.S.C. § 1505 is a criminal obstruction statute that does not provide a private right of action for a civil lawsuit, and that Naseri had not alleged conduct prohibited by that statute.

Disposition

The court granted the City's motion to dismiss Naseri's federal claims. It dismissed those claims without leave to amend. The court noted that it had already dismissed the federal claims twice while allowing amendment, and concluded that Naseri had received a sufficient opportunity to plead them.

After dismissing all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state and municipal claims. It remanded the non-federal claims to San Francisco Superior Court. The opinion does not decide the merits of those non-federal claims.