Wilson v. Unknown

Filing 19

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/7/19. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2019)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 ANDREAU GERALD WILSON, Case No. 19-cv-00919-RS (PR) Plaintiff, 5 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 6 8 MEMBERS OF SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON EAST BLOCK CONDEMNED ROW 2 BUILDING & MAIL ROOM MEMBERS, 9 Defendants. 7 10 INTRODUCTION United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Plaintiff fails to state any claim for relief in either of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 12 13 complaints. Accordingly, this federal civil rights suit is DISMISSED. DISCUSSION 14 15 16 A. Standard of Review A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 17 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 18 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 19 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 20 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 21 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 22 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 23 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 24 (9th Cir. 1994). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 25 essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States 26 was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 27 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 28 1 B. Legal Claims 2 1. Original Complaint 3 In the original complaint plaintiff alleged that “[t]he members of San Quentin State 4 Prison are obstructing communication between family, friends, pen-pals, associates and 5 legal representatives.” (Compl., Dkt. No. 14 at 4.) The complaint was dismissed (with 6 leave to amend) because these allegations failed to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff failed 7 to allege specific incidents of mail interference and the specific persons responsible. 2. 9 The first amended complaint is not an improvement. Again, plaintiff fails to 10 provide any facts that would state a claim for relief. His statements are conclusory and he 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 8 First Amended Complaint fails to link any specific defendant with any wrongful act. 12 The complaint also goes on at length about many irrelevant matters, e.g., judicial 13 proceedings in Long Beach, California; a request for help in contacting his children and 14 their mothers; a request that defendants “make a plea in open court”; a request for the 15 arrest of “all members of San Quentin State Prison”; and a declaration that he is now the 16 owner of San Quentin State Prison and asks that “these people be removed from my land 17 immediately.” (First Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 18 at 3, 4, and 5.) Because plaintiff fails to 18 state any claim for relief, this action will be dismissed. 19 CONCLUSION 20 This federal civil rights suit is DISMISSED without prejudice. If plaintiff believes 21 he can state a claim for relief, he may file an amended complaint. So far he has not been 22 able to do so, even after filing two complaints. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of 23 defendants, and close the file. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: October ___, 2019 7 _________________________ RICHARD SEEBORG United States District Judge 26 27 ORDER OF DISMISSAL CASE NO. 19-cv-00919-RS 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?