Harrod

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 BRIAN DION LEWIS, No. 2:23-cv-01221 WBS SCR P Plaintiff, v. ORDER M. HARROD, et al., Defendants. 15 Plaintiff is incarcerated in state prison and proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (“SAC”) is before the undersigned for screening un 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (ECF No. 24.) For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned finds the SAC states a cognizable First Amendment mail interference claim against defendants Harrod and L.G., and a cognizable First Amendment free exercise claim against defendants Speers and Jones, but no other cognizable claims. Plaintiff has the option of proceeding on his cognizable claims or filing a third amended complaint. STATUTORY SCREENING The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against “a governmental entity or officer or employee of a…