Bayer v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Jeffrey Bayer, appearing without a lawyer, sued the City and County of San Francisco. His original complaint asserted an equal-protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute that permits claims against state or local governmental actors, and a state-law negligence claim. The City removed the case from San Francisco Superior Court to federal court.

The court had previously granted the City’s motion to dismiss and allowed Bayer to amend. That earlier order stated that much of the § 1983 claim appeared untimely under California’s two-year limitations period. It also stated that the complaint did not plausibly allege that the City acted under an official policy, custom, or practice, or that it intentionally discriminated against Bayer because he is male. The court instructed Bayer to provide the factual and legal bases for each claim and the dates of each alleged instance of misconduct, and prohibited adding new claims without permission.

Bayer filed a first amended complaint. It described events from 2014, 2015, and 2018, as well as events in 2021 and 2022. Among other allegations, Bayer claimed that his then-employer questioned him about blog posts concerning assaults by City police; that police entered his home, searched it, and made statements about his possible detention; that City officials helped conceal alleged police crimes; and that a labor hearing was canceled. The City moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the allegations concerning events in 2014, 2015, and 2018 fell outside the applicable limitations period. To the extent Bayer relied on those events as the basis for a federal claim, the court dismissed that portion without leave to amend.

The court also held that the other allegations did not state a plausible § 1983 equal-protection claim. The court relied on the same defects identified in its prior order: the allegations did not plausibly connect the City’s conduct to an official policy, custom, or practice, and did not plausibly allege intentional discrimination based on Bayer’s membership in a protected class. The court dismissed that claim with leave to amend.

The court dismissed Bayer’s request for punitive damages without leave to amend because it held that the City is immune from punitive damages under § 1983. Because the sole federal claim was dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to decide related state-law claims—and stated that the state-law claim stood dismissed.

Disposition

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Bayer could file a second amended complaint by October 13, 2023, but could not add new claims without the court’s permission. The new complaint was to identify the factual and legal bases for each claim and provide dates for each alleged instance of misconduct.