Peter Vu v. San Francisco Police Department

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
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.
No. 21-15619
D.C. No. 4:20-cv-04579-JSW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
FEB 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15619
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
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.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 2 of 2 --