(PC) Rodgers-Castillo v. Allen

Opinion

MILTON RODGERS-CASTILLO, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00304-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF MILTON RODGERS-CASTILLO’S MOTION FOR v. EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ALLEN, et al., ACTION SHOULD NOT BE SEVERED Defendants. (ECF No. 20) Plaintiff Milton Rodgers-Castillo’s Response Due: May 21, 2025 Plaintiff Milton Rodgers-Castillo, a former state prisoner, and Manuel Rodgers-Castillo, a current state prisoner (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), are 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.) In preparing to screen the complaint, the Court noted that Plaintiff Manuel Rodgers-Castillo filed a notice of change of address indicating that he had been transferred to Salinas Valley State Prison, while Plaintiff Milton Rodgers-Castillo remained housed at Kern Valley State Prison. (ECF No. 15.) In addition, a search of the CDCR California Incarcerated Records and Information Search (“CIRIS”) website confirmed that while Plaintiff Manuel Rodgers-Castillo was currently housed at Salinas Valley State Prison, it produced no search results for Plaintiff Milton Rodgers-Castillo under any iteration of his name or CDCR number.1 Based on this information, on April 10, 2024, the Court issued an order for Plaintiffs to show cause within twenty-one (21) days why this action should not be severed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. (ECF No. 18.) On April 21, 2025, the Court received a notice of change of address from Plaintiff Milton Rodgers-Castillo indicating that he had been released from custody and providing an updated address for service. (ECF No. 19.) The order to show cause was re-served on Plaintiff Milton Rodgers-Castillo at his new address in San Diego, California on April 22, 2025. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Milton Rodgers-Castillo’s motion for extension of time to respond to the Court’s order to show cause, filed May 5, 2025. (ECF No. 20.) The motion states that Plaintiff Milton Rodgers-Castillo did not receive the Court’s order to show cause until May 1, 2025, when it was provided to him by his parole agent. Plaintiff Milton Rodgers-Castillo requests that the Court extend the deadline to respond to the order to show cause to May 21, 2025. (Id.) The Court finds good cause to grant the requested extension of time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Plaintiff Milton Rodgers-Castillo will be permitted until May 21, 2025 to file his response to the Court’s order to show cause. Plaintiff Manuel Rodgers-Castillo’s response to the Court’s order to show cause remains due on or before May 5, 2025, subject to the prison mailbox rule.2 Plaintiff Milton Rodgers-Castillo is further reminded that, now that he has been released from custody, the prison mailbox rule no longer applies to his filings. When Plaintiff Milton Rodgers-Castillo mails papers to the Clerk’s Office, filing is complete when the papers are received by the Clerk. Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989)

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).

2 Pursuant to the prison mailbox rule, a pleading filed by a pro se prisoner is deemed to be filed as of the date the prisoner delivered it to the prison authorities for mailing to the court clerk. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1108–09 (9th Cir. 2009) (mailbox rule articulated in Houston applies to civil rights actions). (emphasis added). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff Milton Rodgers-Castillo’s motion for extension of time, (ECF No. 20), is GRANTED; 2. Plaintiff Milton Rodgers-Castillo shall file his response to the Court’s April 10, 2025 order to show cause, (ECF No. 18), on or before May 21, 2025; 3. Plaintiff Manuel Rodgers-Castillo’s response to the Court’s April 10, 2025 order to show cause, (ECF No. 18), remains due on or before May 5, 2025; and 4. 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: May 7, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE