Vu v. San Francisco Police Department

Background

Peter Vu was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court therefore screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires review of claims that may be frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Vu alleged that he reported being the victim of an ongoing hate crime by a neighbor, but that the San Francisco Police Department did not investigate because officers viewed him differently from a “regular citizen.” The court understood the complaint as attempting to bring a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Reasons the Complaint Was Inadequate

The court identified two pleading problems. First, the San Francisco Police Department was not a proper defendant for a claim under § 1983 because a municipal police department or other department subunit generally is not a legally suable “person” under that statute. The court explained that the City and County of San Francisco could be sued under § 1983 only if an official city policy caused the alleged constitutional violation. Vu had not alleged that an official policy caused the failure to investigate, so simply replacing the police department with the City and County would not fix the problem.

Second, the court found that Vu had not plausibly alleged discrimination based on membership in a protected group, such as race or national origin. The statement that he was treated less favorably than a “regular citizen” did not explain what that phrase meant or support an inference of protected-group discrimination.

Order

The court ordered Vu, by October 2, 2020, either to file an amended complaint correcting these deficiencies or to respond by explaining why his current complaint was sufficient. The court stated that if Vu did not respond, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed with prejudice. The order itself did not dismiss the case. Any amended complaint had to replace the original complaint and include all facts, claims, and defendants Vu wished to pursue.

Judge Joseph C. Spero continued the case-management conference from October 9, 2020, to January 8, 2021. The order also noted that Vu was not represented by counsel and referred him to a court legal-help center for basic assistance, not representation.