I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 48, pleads sufficient facts to show that Defendants City and County of San Francisco (“City”) and members of the San Francisco Police Department (“Police Department”) (collectively, “Defendants”) selectively enforced the law against Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs are Black, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. (“Title VI”). Plaintiffs allege that in fulfilling the role of targeting people for buy-walks and surveillance that led to federal drug charges pursuant to Operation Safe Schools (“Operation”), Defendants intentionally selected Black people for enforcement, even though they knew that people of all races conduct drug transactions in the Tenderloin neighborhood where the Operation took place.

The Federal court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. And pursuant to 42 U.S. Code§ 2000d. The Federal court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28.U.S.C § 1332; I am not a US citizen and the amount of damage exceeds $75,000. United States government agency is a party pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §706 (2) - the administrative procedure act which waives the federal government's sovereign immunity over suits "seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority". United States government agency is a party pursuant to 42 U.S. Code§ 2000d-2 authorizing judicial review of federal agencies.

Since 2000, the majority of federal funding agencies have published guidance on the obligations of recipients of federal financial assistance to provide meaningful language access. Case 2:12-cv-00981-ROS Document 38 Filed 06/22/12 Page 8 of 17 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons, 67 Fed. Reg. 41,455 (June 18, 2002) (“Under DOJ regulations implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, et seq. (Title VI), recipients of Federal financial assistance have a responsibility to ensure meaningful access to their programs and activities by persons with limited English proficiency (LEP).”). The Department’s regulations explicitly apply to sheriffs’ departments and jails.

Cases uphold as valid exercises of Spending Clause authority so-called cross-cutting conditions that can apply even if there is no direct link to the expenditure of federal funds. See Lau, 414 U.S. at 566-69 (holding the “Federal Government has power to fix the terms on which its money allotments to the States shall be disbursed;” finding school district violated the cross-cutting nondiscrimination requirement in 42 U.S.C. § 2000d that properly applies to recipients of funds from any federal program); Oklahoma v. U.S. Civil Service Comm’n, 330 21 Case 1:09-cv-11156-JLT Document 17 Filed 10/30/09 Page 33 of 48 U.S. 127, 129 n.1 (1947) (upholding across-the-board requirement in the Hatch Act that no state employee whose principal employment was connected to any activity that was financed in whole or in part by the United States could take “any active part in political management”); Constantine v. Rectors and Visitors of George Mason University, 411 F.3d 474, 492-93 (4th Cir. 2005) (upholding 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7, requiring as a condition on receipt of federal funds that States waive their immunity from suit for violations of Title VI, the Rehabilitation Act, and other statutes, notwithstanding that § 2000d-7 is a “blanket condition that applies regardless of the nature or the amount of federal funds accepted”); Garrett v. University of Alabama at Birmingham Bd. of Trustees, 344 F.3d 1288, 1293 (11th Cir. 20

In his fourth claim, Plaintiff asserts a § 1983 claim premised on a violation of his right to be free of crimes of violence motivated by gender under 42 U.S.C. § 13981. In his fifth claim, Plaintiff asserts a § 1983 claim based on his right to be free from “discrimination in federal assisted programs” under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. In his sixth claim, Plaintiff asserts a § 1983 claim premised on a violation based on his right to be free from discrimination in “public accommodation assisted programs” under 42 U.S.C. § 2000a.

1600 Pacific was attempting to redevelop a building in downtown Dallas and contended that the city had “thwarted” the project out of a desire to keep low- income housing concentrated in the southern portion of the city. (See Doc. 3 at pp. 12–13 of 58.) MacKenzie claims to have been associated in some way with the proposed development, and he was identified as a “representative” of 1600 Pacific for purposes of the investigation. (Doc. 85-1, ¶ 2; Doc. 3 at p. 8 of 58.) 1600 Pacific’s administrative complaint alleged that the City of Dallas had violated the following different laws in connection with the proposed development:  the Fair Housing Act, which generally prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, etc. in the sale or rental of housing, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.;  Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, etc. in any program that receives federal financial assistance, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq.; 2 The materials cited herein at “Doc. 3” are the exhibits that were attached to MacKenzie’s original complaint and that are referred to as “attached” to the second amended complaint, even though they physically appear elsewhere on the court’s electronic docket.

See MX Grp., Inc. v. City of Covington, 293 F.3d 326, 332 (6th Cir. 2002). 2:15-cv-12611-GAD-RSW Doc # 32 Filed 01/20/16 Pg 12 of 39 Pg ID 432 5 include declaratory and injunctive relief. 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq). Defendants are subject to the RA. Am. Compl. ¶ 51.

These laws in- 22 General Plan Guidelines clude Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), among others. Title VI prohibits any recipient(state or local entity or public or private agency) of federal financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin in its programsoractivities (42 USC §2000d-§2000d-7). State and local agencies that receive federal funding must comply with Title VI.