Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00661/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00661-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISAIAH J. PETILLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. GALLAGHER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-00661 GSA (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY MATTER SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE 

CHANGE OF ADDRESS

PLAINTIFF’S SHOWING OF CAUSE OR, IN 

THE ALTERNATIVE, HIS NOTICE OF 

CHANGE OF ADDRESS DUE MARCH 19, 

2024

Plaintiff, a county jail inmate proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking 

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has paid the filing fee. The matter was referred to a 

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff will be ordered to show cause why this matter 

should not be dismissed for failure to keep the Court informed of his current address.

I. RELEVANT FACTS

On February 20, 2023, Plaintiff’s complaint was filed (see ECF No. 1 at 11),1and on May 

1

 The signing date of a pleading is the earliest possible filing date pursuant to the mailbox rule. 

See Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 769 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating constructive filing date for 

prisoner giving pleading to prison authorities is date pleading is signed); Jenkins v. Johnson, 330 

F.3d 1146, 1149 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003), overruled on other grounds by Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 

U.S. 408 (2005).

Case 1:23-cv-00661-KES-GSA Document 12 Filed 03/06/24 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

1, 2023, the matter was docketed. See generally ECF No. 1. Thereafter, the matter was reviewed

in June of 2023, and Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as 

untimely filed in violation of the statute of limitations. ECF No. 4. Specifically, the Court found 

that the complaint raises claims regarding matters that occurred in November 2017, and that 

California’s statute of limitations period for personal injury actions is two years. See id. at 2-3 

(screening order); see also ECF No. 1 at 4, 7, 8 (complaint stating incidents occurred in 

November 2017). As a result of these findings, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this 

matter should not be dismissed as untimely filed. Id. at 4.

On October 23, 2023, Plaintiff’s showing of cause was docketed in this Court. ECF No. 

8. Three days later, two additional documents filed by Plaintiff were docketed: (1) a document 

explaining why the showing of cause had been filed late,2and (2) a motion for a subpoena. See

ECF Nos. 9, 10 (respectively).

On December 8, 2023, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s motion for a subpoena and 

determined that it had been improperly filed in this matter. Instead, the motion should have been 

filed in Petillo v. Jasso, No. 1:21-cv-01401 SAB (“Jasso”). See ECF No. 11. As a result, the 

Court issued an order directing that Plaintiff’s subpoena motion be disregarded in this case and

filed in Jasso. Id. at 2.

Shortly thereafter, on December 18, 2023, the Court’s order sent to Plaintiff directing that 

the subpoena be filed in the Jasso case, was returned to the Court marked “Undeliverable, Return 

to Sender.” To date, Plaintiff has not filed a change of address with this Court.

II. DISCUSSION

It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. 

See Local Rule 183(b). If mail that a court sends to a litigant who is representing himself is 

2

 Although the Clerk of Court has described Plaintiff’s subsequent filing, docketed on October 

26, 2023, as a second response to the Court’s order to show cause (see docket entry at ECF No. 

9), the document is simply a notice explaining why Plaintiff’s showing of cause was filed after 

the Court’s original July 28, 2023, deadline. See generally id. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court 

will be directed to change the description of that entry to “Notice Re: Late Filing of Showing of 

Cause.”

Case 1:23-cv-00661-KES-GSA Document 12 Filed 03/06/24 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

returned to it, and the litigant fails to notify that court within sixty-three days thereafter of his 

current address, a court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See id.

More than sixty-three days have now passed since the Court’s order responding to 

Plaintiff’s motion for a subpoena was returned to it as undeliverable. Because Plaintiff has not 

filed notice of his current address with the Court during that period, consistent with Local Rule 

183(b), Plaintiff will be ordered to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure 

to prosecute.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court shall correct docket entry number 9 so that it reads, “Notice Re: 

Late Filing of Showing of Cause.” See ECF No. 9;

2. Within fourteen days from the date of this order – by March 19, 2024, – Plaintiff shall 

file a showing of cause why this matter should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to 

prosecute, and

3. In lieu of filing the showing of cause, Plaintiff may file a notice of change of address 

with the Court.

Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to timely respond to this order may result in a 

recommendation that this matter be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00661-KES-GSA Document 12 Filed 03/06/24 Page 3 of 3