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)

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