Harrison v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Patrina Harrison, a pro se plaintiff, sued the City and County of San Francisco over an incident at a supermarket in December 2019. Harrison alleged that a store manager attacked her and that the San Francisco Police Department declined to help her make a citizen’s arrest. She attributed that refusal to a San Francisco municipal policy concerning race.

Harrison asserted civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 2000d. San Francisco moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s analysis

The court gave Harrison’s pro se complaint a liberal reading and resolved doubts in her favor, but explained that she still had to comply with the basic pleading requirements of Rule 8 and allege facts making her claims plausible. The court held that one alleged incident of unconstitutional conduct was insufficient to plausibly establish that San Francisco maintained a discriminatory policy or practice for purposes of the Section 1983 claim. The court said the same deficiency applied to Harrison’s other claims.

The court also concluded that there is no federal constitutional right to make a citizen’s arrest. To the extent Harrison’s allegations described a violation of California state law, the court said that state-law violation could not serve as the basis for a federal civil-rights claim.

Disposition

The court granted San Francisco’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. It found that amendment was not warranted because Harrison had filed the complaint about 21 months after the December 2019 incident and had not been able to allege facts plausibly showing a discriminatory policy or practice. The case was ordered closed, and the court said no further filings would be accepted without prior approval.