(PC)Somerville v. Bettancourt

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RICHARD MICHAEL SOMERVILLE, Case No. 1:21-cv-01695-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. B. BETANCOURT, et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION IMPROPERLY FILED DURING STAY 15 Defendants. AND DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND (Docs. 32, 34) 18 14-DAY DEADLINE

20 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.

22 The Order to Show Cause is Discharged 23 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).

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

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).

6 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.

8 The Motion for Return of Property is Denied 9 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).

15 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.

18 Defendants are Directed to Respond 19 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.

21 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.

24 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.

27 / / / 1 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.

3 | IT IS SO ORDERED. “| Dated: _ January 22, 2024 | hr 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE