1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WILLIAM ANTHONY ROBERTSON, Case No. 19-cv-07509-SI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 9 10 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 William Anthony Robertson, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, filed this pro se 15 civil rights action seeking relief under

. The court dismissed the complaint with 16 leave to amend so that Robertson could attempt to cure several pleading deficiencies. He then filed 17 an amended complaint. The amended complaint is now before the court for review under 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915A. 19 20 BACKGROUND 21 The statement of the claims in the original complaint was very short and conclusory, i.e., 22 Robertson alleged that he was denied “denied [his] right to due process in the matter of [his] 23 confinement” in the jail and was not “given the rights allotted under the 6th Amendment.” Docket 24 No. 1 at 3. 25 The statement of the claim in the amended complaint is little better. Robertson alleges that 26 he and every other person arrested in the United States for drug related crimes should be treated as 27 prisoners of war because “all programs for drug addicts were taken away at a state level due to the 1 Robertson is “trying to start a claim against the U.S. government” on his theory that he is a prisoner 2 of war. Id. Robertson further alleges that he is pretrial detainee who should be treated as innocent 3 until proven guilty but deputy Jocowitz states he can treat Robertson “as so.” Id. 4 5 DISCUSSION 6 A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner seeks 7 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 8 § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 9 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 10 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b). Pro se 11 pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't,

, 699 12 (9th Cir. 1990). 13 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 14 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the violation 15 was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

, 48 16 (1988). 17 The amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Robertson’s 18 claim that he should be treated as a prisoner of war does not state a claim because it does not allege 19 any facts that suggest the violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 20 Moreover, Robertson does not link any defendant to this claim by alleging what a defendant did or 21 failed to do that showed a violation of his rights, as the court cautioned him was necessary. See 22 Docket No. 7 at 3. 23 The amended complaint’s allegation that a deputy is not treating Robertson as innocent until 24 proven guilty fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The order of dismissal with 25 leave to amend explained that Robertson’s conclusory allegations of violations of constitutional 26 rights without any supporting factual allegations were deficient and that the amended complaint 27 needed to “allege a short and plain statement” of each claim he wanted to assert. Id. at 2, 3; see 1 factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of [her] ‘entitle[ment] to 2 || relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 3 cause of action will not do. ... Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above 4 the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007) (citations omitted). 5 || A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Jd. at 6 || 570. Robertson’s conclusory allegation that deputy Jocowitz is not respecting a presumption of 7 innocence does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 8 Further leave to amend will not be granted because it would be futile: the court has already 9 explained what Robertson needed to allege in his amended complaint to state a claim and he was 10 || unwilling or unable to do so. 11 12 CONCLUSION 13 This action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 14 || The clerk shall close the file. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 || Dated: July 17, 2020 Site WU tee SUSAN ILLSTON Z 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28