Vu v. San Francisco Police Department

Background

Peter Vu asked to proceed without paying the filing fee, and the court granted that request. The court was therefore required to screen his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Vu alleged that he had reported to the San Francisco Police Department that he was the victim of an ongoing hate crime by a neighbor. He alleged that the department failed to investigate because it looked at him differently from a “regular citizen.” The court construed 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.

Deficiencies identified by the court

The court found two problems with the claim.

First, the San Francisco Police Department was not a proper defendant for a § 1983 claim. Section 1983 requires a “person” acting under state law. The court explained that individual officers and local governmental units may qualify, but municipal departments and subunits, including police departments, generally do not. The court also stated that simply replacing the police department with the City and County of San Francisco would not cure the problem because Vu had not alleged that an official city policy caused the alleged constitutional violation.

Second, an equal-protection claim requires allegations that the defendants intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff because of membership in a protected class. The court found that Vu had alleged only that he was treated less favorably than a “regular citizen,” without additional allegations identifying discrimination based on a protected group such as race or national origin.

Order

The court did not dismiss the case at this stage. It ordered Vu, no later than October 2, 2020, either to file an amended complaint curing the identified deficiencies or to respond by explaining why the existing complaint was sufficient. The order stated that if Vu did not respond, the case would be reassigned to a United States district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed with prejudice.

The court also continued the case-management conference previously scheduled for October 9, 2020, listing the new date as January 8, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. The order noted that Vu was not represented by counsel and referred him to a legal-help center that assists people representing themselves.