Stamos

MEMORANDUM **

James George Stamos, Jr., a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the district court’s October 22, 2004, dismissal with prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 1988 action for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , we affirm.

We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir.2003). In his amended complaint, Stamos did not allege that the deprivation of his constitutional rights was the product of an official custom or policy. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 , 690—91, 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Nadell v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 268 F.3d 924 , 929 (9th Cir.2001). That deficiency prevented Stamos from proving any “set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 , 45—46, 78 S.Ct. 99 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).

Stamos also claims that the district court should have granted him a second opportunity to amend his complaint to state a claim. We disagree. Although Stamos was granted leave to amend his initial…