Bayer v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Jeffrey Bayer, representing himself, sued the City and County of San Francisco. The complaint asserted two causes of action: an equal-protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute, plus a state-law negligence claim. Bayer originally filed the action in San Francisco Superior Court, and San Francisco removed it to federal court based on federal-question jurisdiction.

San Francisco moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint did not state a plausible claim for relief. It alternatively sought a more definite statement under Rule 12(e). Bayer opposed the motion.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the requirement that a complaint contain enough factual allegations to make liability plausible. Although courts read self-represented litigants’ complaints generously, such plaintiffs must still meet the applicable pleading standards.

The court concluded that a substantial portion of Bayer’s § 1983 claim was barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. The complaint discussed an incident from April 6, 2014, and another apparently occurring in 2018 or 2019. The court found that these allegations did not describe constitutional violations accruing within two years before Bayer filed suit on July 1, 2022.

The court also rejected Bayer’s reliance on the continuing-violations doctrine, which can in limited circumstances allow claims based on conduct occurring outside the limitations period. The court found that the doctrine did not revive Bayer’s pre-2020 allegations.

Separately, the court found that the complaint did not plausibly allege an equal-protection claim. It did not adequately allege that San Francisco acted under an official policy, custom, or practice. Bayer alleged that San Francisco had repeatedly rejected his requests to begin criminal investigations and prosecutions, but the court found that those allegations were insufficient to show a widespread policy or custom. The court also found that Bayer had not plausibly alleged that San Francisco treated him differently because he is male or otherwise acted with discriminatory intent based on membership in a protected class.

Ruling and next steps

The court dismissed the § 1983 claim with leave to amend. It declined to address the state-law negligence claim until a federal claim was plausibly alleged. The court permitted Bayer to file an amended complaint consistent with the order by March 6, 2023, and prohibited adding new claims without permission. It stated that failure to comply would result in dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b). The opinion text supplied here does not clearly identify the judge’s full name; the signature appears corrupted or unclear.