Wilson v. Members of San Quentin State Prison East Block Condemned Row 2…
Wilson v. Members of San Quentin State Prison East Block Condemned Row 2 Building & Mail Room Members
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:19-cv-00919
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Wilson v. Members of San Quentin State Prison, Judge Seeborg dismissed the § 1983 suit without prejudice because both complaints failed to state a claim.
Andreau Gerald Wilson’s federal civil-rights suit was dismissed without prejudice; the named members of San Quentin State Prison were awarded judgment in their favor, and the file was closed.
What happened
Wilson v. Members of San Quentin State Prison involved allegations that prison members obstructed communication with family, friends, pen pals, associates, and legal representatives. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because it did not identify specific mail-interference incidents or the people responsible.
The first amended complaint still did not provide facts connecting any specific defendant to wrongful conduct. It also included requests and statements about unrelated judicial proceedings, contacting children, arrests, and ownership of the prison.
Judge Seeborg dismissed the federal civil-rights suit without prejudice, entered judgment for the defendants, and closed the file. The order said Wilson could file another amended complaint if he believed he could state a claim.
The detailed version
- Wilson v. Members of San Quentin State Prison East Block Condemned Row 2… · No. 3:19-cv-00919
- Richard Seeborg
- Oct. 7, 2019
Background
Andreau Gerald Wilson brought two complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute that allows claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority. In the original complaint, Wilson alleged that members of San Quentin State Prison were obstructing communication between family, friends, pen pals, associates, and legal representatives.
The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because it did not identify specific incidents of mail interference or the specific people responsible. Wilson then filed a first amended complaint.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the rule that a complaint must contain enough factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief. The court concluded that the first amended complaint was not an improvement: it did not provide facts stating a claim and made conclusory statements without linking any specific defendant to a wrongful act.
The court also noted that the amended complaint discussed matters it considered irrelevant to the claims, including judicial proceedings in Long Beach, California; requests for help contacting Wilson’s children and their mothers; a request that defendants make a plea in open court; a request for the arrest of all members of San Quentin State Prison; and a statement that Wilson owned San Quentin State Prison and wanted the people there removed from his land.
Disposition
Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed the federal civil-rights suit without prejudice because Wilson failed to state a claim for relief. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and close the file. The order stated that Wilson could file an amended complaint if he believed he could state a claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.