McComas

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAM DRAKE, No. 1:22-cv-1149 JLT BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING

13 v. CERTAIN CLAIMS 14 MCCOMAS, et al., (Doc. 38) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Sam Drake is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff’s 19 second amended complaint and found Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for: (1) violation of the 20 First Amendment based on a facial challenge to FCJ Policy #E-120 and #E-410 against 21 Defendants Mims, McComas, and Zanoni; (2) violation of the First Amendment based on an as- 22 applied challenge to FCJ Policy #E-120 and #E-410 against Enriquez, Keoniyom, Nichols, and 23 Snyder; and (3) for violation of Due Process against officers who returned Plaintiff’s mail, 24 Enriquez, Keoniyom, Nichols, and Snyder. (Doc. 38 at 9-14.) The magistrate judge found these 25 were…