Opinion
21-15619
02-25-2022
PETER VU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation; WILLIAM SCOTT, Officer; as an individual in his official capacity as a Police Chief of San Francisco Police Department; NICHOLAS RAINSFORD, Officer; as an individual in his official capacity as an officer of San Francisco Police Department; ZUROSKI, First name unknown; Officer; as an individual in his official capacity as an officer of San Francisco Police Department; E. ROBERTS, Officer; as an individual in his official capacity as an officer of San Francisco Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California D.C. No. 4:20-cv-04579-JSW Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Peter Vu appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection violation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Vu's action because Vu failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013) ("To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim).
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.