Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00021/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00021-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES A. ROGERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. CAMPBELL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00021-JLT-SKO (PC)

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(Doc. 18)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 

21 DAYS OF THE DATE OF SERVICE OF 

THIS ORDER

Plaintiff Charles A. Rogers is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 31, 2023, the Court issued its Second Screening Order. (Doc. 15.) The Court 

found Plaintiff had stated a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant 

Campbell, but that the remaining claims did not state a cognizable claim against any other 

defendant. (Id. at 9-16.) Plaintiff was ordered to do one of the following: (1) file a third amended 

complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the screening order; or (2) file a notice that he does 

not wish to file a third amended complaint and instead wishes to (a) proceed only on his First 

Amendment claim against Defendant Campbell, (b) dismiss his remaining claims, and (c) dismiss 

Case 1:21-cv-00021-JLT-SKO Document 20 Filed 04/14/23 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

the remaining defendants; or (3) file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 17-18.) Plaintiff was 

afforded 21 days within which to respond. (Id.) 

On February 13, 2023, Plaintiff elected the second option noted above by filing 

“Plaintiff’s Notice of His Intention to Proceed Only on His First Amendment Claim Against 

Defendant Campbell.” (Doc. 16.) 

Following Plaintiff’s notice, on March 7, 2023, the Court issued Findings and 

Recommendations to Dismiss Certain Claims and Defendants. (Doc. 18.) The Court 

recommended that Defendants Cates, Gutierrez, Horn, Lundy, Nouwels, Stiles, Sullivan, 

Vaquera, and White be dismissed from the action, and that Plaintiff’s second amended complaint 

proceed only on the retaliation claim alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights against 

Defendant Campbell. (See Doc. 18; see also Doc. 15 [Second Screening Order].) Plaintiff was 

given 14 days from the date of service within which to file any objections. (Doc. 18 at 2.) 

On March 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 

(Doc. 19.) 

II. DISCUSSION AND ORDER

In his objections, Plaintiff states named Defendants Cates, Lundy, Nouwles, Gutierrez, 

Sullivan, White, Horn, Stiles and Vaquera “should remain as defendants because they collectively 

and individually violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” (Doc. 19 at 1.) Plaintiff further 

contends he “stated facts that can be proven if allowed to proceed with this action. All facts 

outlined in plaintiff’s second amended complaint are exactly that, facts.” (Id.) Plaintiff asks the 

Court “to allow him to present these facts through the discovery process,” citing to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff asks the Court “to allow him to proceed with all 

the remaining defendants in this action.” (Id. at 2.) 

Because Plaintiff has filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations despite filing 

a notice to proceed on the claim found cognizable by the Court, his objections are hereby

construed as a request to file a third amended complaint. 

Plaintiff will be afforded one final opportunity to cure the deficiencies identified by the 

Court in its Second Screening Order. Following receipt of the third amended complaint, the Court 

Case 1:21-cv-00021-JLT-SKO Document 20 Filed 04/14/23 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

will perform the required screening to determine whether the third amended complaint states 

cognizable claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Plaintiff is advised that his complaint asserts factual allegations. Those allegations must 

be found to state cognizable claims against the defendants. As explained in the Second Screening 

Order, the “’sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully’ is not sufficient to state a 

cognizable claim, and ‘facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability’ fall short.” 

(See Doc. 15 at 3, citing to Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).) The Court has accepted 

Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true but determined, and explained why, Plaintiff had failed to 

state cognizable claims against those named defendants other than Defendant Campbell. (Id. at 9-

16.) To proceed in this action, Plaintiff must state cognizable claims against the remaining 

defendants; otherwise, the Court is required to dismiss that portion of Plaintiff’s complaint that 

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); Balistreri v. 

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued March 7, 2023 (Doc. 18) are VACATED; 

2. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a third amended complaint, curing the 

deficiencies identified in the Second Screening Order, within 21 days of the date of 

service of this order; and 

3. Plaintiff is advised that should he fail to file a third amended complaint, or, if 

following screening of any third amended complaint, the Court determines Plaintiff 

has failed to state cognizable claims against the remaining defendants, the Court will 

again issue findings and recommendations, recommending that the action proceed 

only on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Campbell. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00021-JLT-SKO Document 20 Filed 04/14/23 Page 3 of 3