(PC) Rodgers-Castillo v. Allen

Opinion

MILTON RODGERS-CASTILLO, et al. Case No. 1:25-cv-00304-BAM (PC) Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE SEVERED v. TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE ALLEN, et al., Defendants. Plaintiffs Milton Rodgers-Castillo and Manuel Rodgers-Castillo (“Plaintiffs”) are state prisoners proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs initiated this joint action on March 12, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In preparing to screen the complaint, the Court notes that Plaintiff Manuel Rodgers-Castillo recently filed a notice of change of address indicating that he has been transferred to Salinas Valley State Prison. (ECF No. 15.) The notice further indicates that Plaintiff Milton Rodgers-Castillo remains housed at Kern Valley State Prison. (Id.) The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Courts have broad discretion regarding severance. See Davis v. Mason Cty., 927 F.2d 1473, 1479 (9th Cir. 1991). In the instant action, Plaintiffs are individuals in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), presently confined at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California and at Salinas Valley State Prison in Soledad, California. In this Court’s experience, an action brought by multiple inmate plaintiffs proceeding pro se presents procedural problems that cause delay and confusion. Delay often arises from the frequent transfer of inmates to other facilities or institutions, the changes in address that occur when inmates are released to parole, and the difficulties faced by inmates who attempt to communicate with each other and with unincarcerated individuals. According to Plaintiff Manuel Rodgers-Castillo’s April 7, 2025 notice of change of address, Plaintiffs are now housed at two separate institutions, and there is no indication that they will be housed at the same institution in the future. (ECF No. 15.) In addition, the Court notes while a search of the CDCR California Incarcerated Records and Information Search (“CIRIS”) website confirms that Plaintiff Manuel Rodgers-Castillo is currently housed at Salinas Valley State Prison, it produces no search results for the names “Milton Rodgers,” “Milton Rodgers-Castillo,” “Milton Castillo,” or the CDCR Number “BP9651”.1 Despite Plaintiffs’ recent representations that Plaintiff Milton Rodgers-Castillo remains housed at Kern Valley State Prison, it is not clear whether he remains in CDCR custody at this time. The changing nature of Plaintiffs’ mailing addresses and uncertainty of their custody status provide one example of the difficulties presented by allowing this action to proceed with multiple inmate plaintiffs. The Court has already warned Plaintiffs that earlier filings did not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Local Rules because a motion submitted on behalf of both Plaintiffs did not contain the actual signatures of both Plaintiffs.

1 The Court may take judicial notice of public information stored on the CDCR California Incarcerated Records and Information Search (“CIRIS”) website. See In re Yahoo Mail Litig., 7 F. Supp. 3d. 1016, 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (court may take judicial notice of information on “publicly accessible websites” not subject to reasonable dispute); Louis v. McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp., 460 F. Supp. 2d. 1153, 1155 n.4 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (court may take judicial notice of state agency records). (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiffs are now housed at separate institutions, and—unbeknownst to Plaintiff Manuel Rodgers-Castillo—Plaintiff Milton Rodgers-Castillo may have been released from custody. In light of this development, there is no indication in the record that Plaintiffs will be able to effectively communicate with one another to litigate this action or respond to the Court’s orders in an appropriate and timely fashion. Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, each Plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be severed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21; and 2. Failure to comply with this order will result in severance of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE