(PC) Rogers v. Matteson

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MAURICE DI AUNDRA ROGERS, No. 2:22-cv-0403 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GISELLE MATTESON, et al.

15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. On April 11, 2022, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint as the court is required to do under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint which the court now screens.

21 The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 24 1915A(b)(1),(2).

25 Having conducted the required screening, the court finds that plaintiff may proceed on a claim arising under the First Amendment against defendant Ray Smith as detailed in claim I of plaintiff’s amended complaint. In all other respects, the amended complaint does not state actionable claims. At this point, plaintiff has two options: 1) proceed on the claim identified | above; or 2) attempt to cure the deficiencies in plaintiff's amended complaint in a second || amended complaint. In considering whether to amend a second time, the court advises plaintiff as || follows: 4 1. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link || or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 || U.S. 362 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil || rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

8 2. In general, plaintiff's allegations should not be vague or conclusory. Plaintiff must || point to specific acts in order to establish an actionable claim.

10 3. Prisoner legal mail related to civil actions is not entitled to Sixth Amendment || protection. Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431, 441 (2011).

12 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is granted 21 days || within which to complete and return the attached form notifying the court whether he wants to || proceed on a claim arising under the First Amendment against defendant Ray Smith or whether || he wishes to file a second amended complaint in an attempt to cure the deficiencies in his || amended complaint. If plaintiff does not return the form, this action will proceed on the claim || described above.

18 | Dated: October 12, 2022 □□ / del a 19 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | 1 34 roge0403.op UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MAURICE DI AUNDRA ROGERS, No. 2:22-cv-0403 CKD P Plaintiff, v. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF GISELLE MATTESON, et al., HOW TO PROCEED Defendants.

17 Check one: _____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on a claim arising under the First Amendment against defendant Ray Smith; or _____ Plaintiff wants time to file an second amended complaint.

21 DATED: 26 Plaintiff’s Signature