# (PC) Rogers v. Matteson

> District Court, E.D. California · October 12, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10047801

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** October 12, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10047801

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MAURICE DI AUNDRA ROGERS, No. 2:22-cv-0403 CKD P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 GISELLE MATTESON, et al.
15 Defendants.
16
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
19 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to file an
20 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
22 are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
23 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
26 claim arising under the First Amendment against defendant Ray Smith as detailed in claim I of
27 plaintiff’s amended complaint. In all other respects, the amended complaint does not state
28 actionable claims. At this point, plaintiff has two options: 1) proceed on the claim identified
1 | above; or 2) attempt to cure the deficiencies in plaintiff's amended complaint in a second
2 || amended complaint. In considering whether to amend a second time, the court advises plaintiff as
3 || follows:
4 1. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link
5 || or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423
6 || U.S. 362 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil
7 || 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
9 || 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
11 || 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
13 || within which to complete and return the attached form notifying the court whether he wants to
14 || proceed on a claim arising under the First Amendment against defendant Ray Smith or whether
15 || he wishes to file a second amended complaint in an attempt to cure the deficiencies in his
16 || amended complaint. If plaintiff does not return the form, this action will proceed on the claim
17 || described above.
18 | Dated: October 12, 2022 □□ / del a
19 CAROLYNK. DELANEY
20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23 | 1
34 roge0403.op
25
26
27
28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
MAURICE DI AUNDRA ROGERS, No. 2:22-cv-0403 CKD P
11
Plaintiff,
12
v. PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF
13
GISELLE MATTESON, et al., HOW TO PROCEED
14
Defendants.
15

16
17 Check one:
18 _____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on a claim arising under the First Amendment
19 against defendant Ray Smith; or
20 _____ Plaintiff wants time to file an second amended complaint.
21 DATED:
22
23
24
25
26 Plaintiff’s Signature
27

28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10047801. Public record. Not legal advice.