1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 ANDREAU GERALD WILSON, 4 Case No. 19-cv-00919-RS (PR) Plaintiff, 5 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 6 MEMBERS OF SAN QUENTIN 7 STATE PRISON EAST BLOCK CONDEMNED ROW 2 BUILDING & 8 MAIL ROOM MEMBERS,

9 Defendants.

10 11 INTRODUCTION 12 Plaintiff fails to state any claim for relief in either of his

13 complaints. Accordingly, this federal civil rights suit is DISMISSED. 14 DISCUSSION 15 A. Standard of Review 16 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,

(2009) 18 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(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.”

(quoting 21 Twombly,

). 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,

, 754–55 24 (9th Cir. 1994). To state a claim under

, 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,

(1988). 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. 8 2. First Amended Complaint 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 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 _7__, 2019 _________________________ 26 RICHARD SEEBORG 27 United States District Judge