Robertson v. San Francisco County Sheriffs Department

Background

William Anthony Robertson, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, filed this civil-rights action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint and allowed him to amend it to correct pleading deficiencies. Robertson filed an amended complaint, which the court reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the statute requiring preliminary screening of a prisoner’s case against a governmental entity or officer.

In the original complaint, Robertson alleged that he had been denied due process concerning his confinement and had not received rights under the Sixth Amendment. In the amended complaint, he alleged that people arrested in the United States for drug-related crimes should be treated as prisoners of war because programs for drug addicts had been removed at the state level. He also alleged that he was a pretrial detainee who should be treated as innocent until proven guilty, but that Deputy Jocowitz said he could treat Robertson “as so.” Robertson stated that he was trying to bring a claim against the federal government based on his prisoner-of-war theory.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires allegations showing both that a constitutional or federal legal right was violated and that the violation was committed by a person acting under state law. During screening, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but they still must contain enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible rather than relying on labels or conclusions.

The court held that the prisoner-of-war allegation failed to state a claim because Robertson alleged no facts suggesting that a constitutional or federal legal right had been violated. He also did not identify what any defendant did or failed to do that violated his rights. The court separately held that the allegation concerning the presumption of innocence failed because it was conclusory and lacked supporting facts. The court had already explained that Robertson needed to provide a short and plain statement of each claim and the facts supporting it.

Disposition

The court stated that further permission to amend would not be granted because it would be futile: Robertson had already been told what facts were needed, but he was unwilling or unable to provide them. The action was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and the clerk was directed to close the file. Judge Susan Illston signed the order on July 17, 2020.