Harrod

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 BRIAN DION LEWIS, No. 2:23-cv-01221 WBS SCR P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 M. HARROD, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is incarcerated in state prison and proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 17 civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (“SAC”) is 18 before the undersigned for screening un 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (ECF No. 24.) For the reasons set 19 forth below, the undersigned finds the SAC states a cognizable First Amendment mail 20 interference claim against defendants Harrod and L.G., and a cognizable First Amendment free 21 exercise claim against defendants Speers and Jones, but no other cognizable claims. Plaintiff has 22 the option of proceeding on his cognizable claims or filing a third amended complaint. 23 STATUTORY SCREENING 24 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against “a 25 governmental entity or officer or employee of a…