Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02969/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02969-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

ORDER — No. 16-cv-02969-LB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

DAVID WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. TORREZ LOPEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02969-LB 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Re: ECF No. 8

David Wilson filed this pro se prisoner’s civil-rights action to complain about events and 

omissions that occurred while he was housed at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad. The 

court reviewed the complaint, found that it had numerous deficiencies, and dismissed the 

complaint with leave for Mr. Wilson to file an amended complaint. The order of dismissal with 

leave to amend identified the elements of claims for retaliation, deliberate indifference to prisoner 

safety, and due process violations, and it explained the deficiencies in Mr. Wilson’s allegations. 

(ECF No. 4.) 

Mr. Wilson then filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 6.) The court examined the amended 

complaint and determined that the amended complaint “fail[ed] to cure any of the deficiencies 

identified in the order of dismissal with leave to amend” and failed to state a claim upon which 

relief could be granted. (ECF No. 7 at 1.) The court stated that it would “give Mr. Wilson one last 

Case 3:16-cv-02969-LB Document 10 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 3
ORDER — No. 16-cv-02969-LB 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

chance to try to state a plausible claim for relief by allowing him to file a second amended 

complaint.” (Id. at 2.) The court instructed Mr. Wilson to “study the order of dismissal with leave 

to amend carefully and make sure that his second amended complaint cures all the deficiencies 

mentioned in that order.” (Id.) 

Mr. Wilson then filed a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 8.) Like the earlier pleadings, 

the second amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. And like 

the amended complaint, the second amended complaint does not cure the deficiencies identified in 

the order of dismissal with leave to amend. The second amended complaint is a jumbled narrative 

that does not allege facts that make out a plausible claim for retaliation, deliberate indifference to 

safety, or a due process violation. More specifically, the second amended complaint does not state 

a claim for retaliation because Mr. Wilson does not identify his protected conduct that prompted 

the alleged retaliation, does not include enough factual details to plausibly suggest that a prison 

official took adverse action because of Mr. Wilson’s constitutionally protected conduct, and does 

not allege that an adverse action had any chilling effect on his First Amendment activity. See

Rhodes v Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (listing elements of First Amendment 

retaliation claim). The second amended complaint does not state an Eighth Amendment failure-toprotect claim that is plausible because Mr. Wilson does not allege facts to suggest that his belief 

that a correctional officer set up a fight between him and another inmate is anything more than 

speculation by him. The second amended complaint does not state a claim for a due process 

violation in any prison disciplinary proceedings because Mr. Wilson does not allege the 

deprivation of any procedural protections required by Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-67 

(1974), or Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985), at the disciplinary hearing at which 

Mr. Wilson pleaded guilty to the disciplinary offense.

The court does not grant further leave to amend because it would be futile. The court gave Mr. 

Wilson directions about what he needed to allege to state a claim for retaliation, deliberate 

indifference to safety, and a due process violation. (ECF No. 4.) And the court gave Mr. Wilson a 

second chance to cure those deficiencies when his amended complaint did not cure his earlier 

deficiencies. In all, Mr. Wilson had three opportunities to articulate his claims, and he failed to do 

Case 3:16-cv-02969-LB Document 10 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 3
ORDER — No. 16-cv-02969-LB 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

so. Under the circumstances, there is no ground to conclude that Mr. Wilson will be able to state a 

claim if the court gives him another opportunity to try to do so. The court thus dismisses the 

second amended complaint without leave to amend. The dismissal is without prejudice to Mr. 

Wilson’s filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus to challenge his state court conviction, after he 

exhausts state court remedies for any claim that he wishes to present to the federal court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/20/2017

__________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02969-LB Document 10 Filed 03/20/17 Page 3 of 3