Sfpd

Peter Vu v. Sfpd

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 25, 202221-15619California121 words

Opinion

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).

21-15619