Harrison v. City and County of San Francisco

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: June 1, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-07072
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PATRINA HARRISON, Case No. 21-cv-07072-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS v. 9

10 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 11 Defendant.

12 13 Pro se plaintiff Patrina Harrison has sued defendant City and County of San Francisco over 14 an incident at a supermarket in December 2019. Dkt. No. 1. Harrison says that she was attacked 15 by a store manager, and that the SFPD declined to help her make a citizen’s arrest because “the 16 City and County of San Francisco does not allow for Negro races to have white citizens arrested, 17 and that is per City and County of San Francisco’s Municipal Policy.” Id. ¶ 9. Harrison alleged 18 civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 2000d. San Francisco has moved to 19 dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 12. Dismissal is granted. 20 As a pro se plaintiff, Harrison gets a liberal construction of her complaint and the benefit 21 of any doubts, but she still must satisfy the requirements of Rule 8 and state facts sufficient to 22 allege a plausible claim. Nguyen Gardner v. Chevron Capital Corp., No. 15-cv-01514-JD, 2015 23 WL 12976114, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2015). The complaint alleges a single incident of 24 unconstitutional conduct, which is not enough to plausibly state a Section 1983 claim against San 25 Francisco for a policy or practice of discrimination. See Escobar-Lopez v. City of Daly City, 527 26 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 1127-29 (N.D. Cal. 2021). The same holds for Harrison’s other claims. See 27 Fed’n of African Am. Contractors v. City of Oakland, 96 F.3d 1204, 1215-16 (9th Cir. 1996) 1 United States v. Cty. of Maricopa, Arizona, 889 F.3d 648, 652-53 (9th Cir. 2018) (applying § 1983 2 standards to § 2000d). 3 Although it is the Court’s practice to liberally grant leave to amend, especially in pro se 4 || cases, amendment here is not warranted. Harrison filed the complaint in September 2021, 5 approximately 21 months after the December 2019 incident, and was not able to include any facts 6 || that might plausibly allege a policy or practice for purposes of the civil rights claims. In addition, 7 || there is no federal constitutional right to make a citizen’s arrest, and to the extent the alleged 8 incident might be said to have violated California state law, that cannot be the basis of a federal 9 civil rights claim. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Consequently, the complaint is 10 dismissed with prejudice. See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010). 11 The case is ordered closed, and no further filings will be accepted without prior approval by the 12 || Court. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. || Dated: June 1, 2022

16 5 JAMES(PONATO. nited fftates District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28