Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01695/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01695-4/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 DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

IMPROPERLY FILED DURING STAY

AND DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO 

RESPOND

(Docs. 32, 34)

14-DAY DEADLINE

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.

The Order to Show Cause is Discharged

On January 5, 2024, after two orders of the Court mailed to Plaintiff had been returned as 

“undeliverable,” the Court ordered Plaintiff to 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 by updating his address with the Court. (Doc. 32).

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s order to show cause. (Doc. 

34). In that filing, Plaintiff attests he “inadver[te]ntly neglected to inform the court of his change 

Case 1:21-cv-01695-CDB Document 36 Filed 01/23/24 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

of address” when he was relocated to a different facility following a medical procedure. Id. at 2. 

The Court has considered Plaintiff representations in response to the order to show cause

and concludes that his failure to timely update the Court with his changed address constitutes 

excusable neglect. See In re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig., 496 F.3d 962, 973 (9th Cir. 

2007).

Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to discharge the order to show cause, and it is 

HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s order to show cause is DISCHARGED.

The Motion for Return of Property is Denied

In his response to the Court’s order to show cause, Plaintiff separately “motions the court 

for an Order compelling the Defendants/CDCR to produce the Plaintiff[’]s legal correspondence

and documents.” (Doc. 32 at 3). In it its order issued November 20, 2023, the parties were 

advised that “[n]o pleadings or motions may be filed in this case during the [90-day] stay” during 

which the Court explores with the parties the possibility of an early settlement conference. (See

Doc. 24 at 2).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for return of property is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE and subject to renewal pending completion of the impending settlement conference

and lifting of stay.

Defendants are Directed to Respond

The Court notes that all parties to this action have agreed that an early settlement 

conference would be productive and wish to participate in an early settlement conference. (Docs. 

31, 33). The Court anticipates that at least some of the legal correspondence and documents 

described in Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s order to show cause (Doc. 32 at 3) may be relevant 

to Plaintiff’s preparation for and participation in an impending settlement conference.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that counsel for Defendants shall undertake 

reasonable efforts to make available to Plaintiff any legal correspondence or documents Plaintiff 

retained while at Salinas Valley State Prison prior to departure on or about December 2, 2023.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:21-cv-01695-CDB Document 36 Filed 01/23/24 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

Within 14 days of entry of this order, counsel for Defendants shall file a status report 

updating the Court on efforts undertaken to comply with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01695-CDB Document 36 Filed 01/23/24 Page 3 of 3