Fu v. Sullivan
- Jon Tigar
- 4:18-cv-04668
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Fu v. Sullivan, Judge Tigar allowed Fu’s amended wrongful-arrest claims past screening and ordered summonses and service.
Tony Fu, Matthew P. Sullivan, and the City and County of San Francisco were directly affected. The order also directed the U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of California to serve the defendants without prepayment of fees.
What happened
Fu v. Sullivan concerns Tony Fu’s claims against Matthew P. Sullivan and the City and County of San Francisco over an allegedly wrongful arrest. Fu represented himself.
Fu’s original complaint named private individuals and a company, but the court previously dismissed it because it did not identify a government actor for a civil-rights claim. Fu amended the complaint to name a municipal official and a municipality.
The amended complaint cured that problem, and Judge Jon S. Tigar found no reason at that stage to conclude that it was frivolous, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. He ordered the clerk to issue summonses and the U.S. Marshal to serve the defendants without requiring Fu to pay fees.
The detailed version
- Fu v. Sullivan · No. 4:18-cv-04668
- Jon Tigar
- Aug. 5, 2020
Background
Tony Fu, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims against Matthew P. Sullivan and the City and County of San Francisco based on an allegedly wrongful arrest. His original complaint named Demas Yan, Thai Ming Chu, Tina Yan, Mark Lapham, and Legal Recovery LLC.
A magistrate judge granted Fu permission to proceed without paying filing fees and recommended dismissing the original complaint while allowing Fu to amend it. The recommendation stated that the complaint did not identify a government actor needed to support claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. After reassignment, the court adopted that recommendation and dismissed the complaint while allowing amendment.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that Fu’s amended complaint cured the identified defect by naming a municipal official and a municipality as defendants. At that stage, the court saw no reason to conclude that the action was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought monetary relief from a defendant who was immune from such relief.
The opinion did not decide whether Fu’s arrest was actually wrongful or whether he would ultimately prevail on his claims.
Order and effect
The court ordered the clerk to issue summonses. It also ordered the U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of California to serve the defendants, without prepayment of fees, with the complaint, amendments, scheduling orders, attachments, Fu’s application, and the order. The case therefore proceeded beyond this screening stage.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.