Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01695/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01695-3/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

RICHARD MICHAEL SOMERVILLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. BETANCOURT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01695-CDB (PC) 

ORDER WITHDRAWING FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

(Doc. 16)

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD 

NOT BE DISMISSED

Plaintiff Richard Michael Somerville is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Background – Recommended Dismissal of Defendant

The Court screened the complaint and found that it states a cognizable Eighth Amendment 

failure to protect claim against Defendants Betancourt, Marquez, and Rios, Correctional Officers 

(“COs”) employed at Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”) - Corcoran. (Doc. 12.) 

However, the Court found that the allegations did not state a claim against the Warden of SATF. 

(Id.) In response to the screening order, Plaintiff elected to proceed on the complaint as screened

and agreed with dismissal of the Warden because he has no knowledge of the Warden’s direct 

Case 1:21-cv-01695-CDB Document 32 Filed 01/05/24 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

involvement. (Doc. 14.) Accordingly, on August 14, 2023, the undersigned entered findings and 

recommendations that the Court dismiss the Warden of SATF as a defendant in this case. (Doc. 

16.) Plaintiff did not timely file objections to the findings and recommendation and the time to 

do so has expired.

By order dated January 4, 2024, this case was reassigned to the undersigned following the 

parties’ indication of consent to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge for all further 

proceedings in this action, including trial and entry of judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(c)(1). (Doc. 30.)

Accordingly, the Court shall vacate the findings and recommendations and order dismissal 

of Defendant Warden of SATF.

Background – Failure to Update Address

On November 20, 2023, the Court issued an order referring this case to post-screening 

ADR and staying the case for 90 days. (Doc. 26.) The Court served the order on Plaintiff by U.S. 

Postal Service. On December 8, 2023, the U.S. Postal Service returned the order as 

“Undeliverable.” To date, Plaintiff has not updated his address with the Court. As explained in 

the Court’s first informational order, a party appearing pro se must keep the Court advised of his 

current address. (Doc. 6 at 5.) Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), if mail directed to a pro se plaintiff 

“is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing 

parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the 

action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” LR. 183(b).

Plaintiff has not updated his address of record. Accordingly, the Court shall order Plaintiff 

to show cause why this action should not be dismissed.

Conclusion and Order

For the forgoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED, the findings and recommendations 

entered August 14, 2023 (Doc. 16) are VACATED.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Warden of SATF be DISMISSED as a defendant in 

this case.

It is FURTHER ORDERED, Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order,

Case 1:21-cv-01695-CDB Document 32 Filed 01/05/24 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

Plaintiff shall show cause in a written filing why the action should not be dismissed for his failure 

to comply with the Local Rules and failure to prosecute this action.

It is FURHTER ORDERED, Defendants are DIRECTED to attempt to serve this order at 

any forwarding address that may be available for Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01695-CDB Document 32 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 3