NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 25 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETER VU, No. 21-15619

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:20-cv-04579-JSW

v. MEMORANDUM* 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.

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. 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 21-15619