UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:25-cv-01557-MEMF-AJR Date: September 16, 2025 Page 1 of 4

Title: Keilyn Lorenz Ellis v. Sheriff Shannon Dicus, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD

NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO UPDATE

ADDRESS OF RECORD AND TO REQUIRE OBJECTIONS,

IF ANY, TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PRESENT:

HONORABLE A. JOEL RICHLIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

_ Claudia Garcia-Marquez_ _______None_______ __None__ Deputy Clerk Court Reporter/Recorder Tape No.

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

None Present None Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS)

On June 23, 2025, pro se Petitioner Keilyn-Lorenz Ellis (“Petitioner”), presently incarcerated at the West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga, California, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”). (Dkt. 1 at 2.)1 On July 9, 2025, the Court screened the Petition and issued an Order to Show Cause why this Court should not recommend that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim under § 2254(a) and for failure to exhaust state court remedies under § 2254(b)(1)(A). (Dkt. 4.) Petitioner was ordered to respond by August 8, 2025. (Id. at 4.) When no response was filed, the Court issued a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (the “Report and Recommendation”) on August 21, 2025, recommending that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice.

1 The Court cites to the CM/ECF pagination on the top of each page.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:25-cv-01557-MEMF-AJR Date: September 16, 2025 Page 2 of 4

Title: Keilyn Lorenz Ellis v. Sheriff Shannon Dicus, et al.

(Dkt. 6.) Petitioner was given until September 10, 2025 to file Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Id.)

On September 11, 2025, however, the Court’s August 21, 2025 Report and Recommendation, which had been mailed to Petitioner’s address of record at 712 E. Fredricks St., Barstow, CA 92311, was returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable. (Dkts. 8-9.) The returned envelope bore the notation: “Forward Time Exp RTN SEND ELLIS” with a forwarding address of 425 S 2nd Ave., Barstow, CA 92311-2891. (Id.) It appears that the Postal Service’s forwarding period expired, and the document could not be delivered.

The Court notes that Petitioner has a pending civil rights complaint in this District, Keilyn Lorenz Ellis v. Shannon Faherty, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-01245-MEMF-AJR (the “Civil Rights Case”), in which he lists the same address of record. Petitioner has continued to file multiple documents using that same address, including filings as recent as September 6, 2025. (Civil Rights Case, Dkts. 82-88.) In light of this, the basis for the return of the Court’s August 21, 2025 Report and Recommendation as undeliverable is unclear. Petitioner is advised that pursuant to the Central District’s Local Rules, parties proceeding pro se must maintain a current address of record. Local Rule 11-3.8 requires the first page of all documents filed with the Court to contain the address “of the attorney or a party appearing pro se presenting the document.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 11-3.8. Local Rule 41-6 also requires a party proceeding pro se to keep the Court and all other parties informed of the party’s current address: A party proceeding pro se must keep the Court and all other parties informed of the party’s current address as well as any telephone number and email address. If a Court order or other mail served on a pro se [petitioner] at his address of record is returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable and the pro se party has not filed a notice of change of address within 14 days of the service date of the order or other Court document, the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:25-cv-01557-MEMF-AJR Date: September 16, 2025 Page 3 of 4

Title: Keilyn Lorenz Ellis v. Sheriff Shannon Dicus, et al.

C.D. Cal. L.R. 41-6 (emphasis added).

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that “[a] party, not the district court, bears the burden of keeping the court apprised of any changes in his mailing address,” and that dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) is proper when a pro se litigant fails to do so. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988).

The Court must have a current address of record for all parties to ensure proper service and receipt of filings. Petitioner is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by September 30, 2025, why the Court should not recommend that this action be dismissed either with or without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 41-6 for failure to provide an updated mailing address. Petitioner may satisfy this Order by filing a response with a current mailing address.

Further, in light of the fact that Petitioner did not receive the Report and Recommendation, the Court sua sponte extends the deadline for filing objections to October 6, 2025.

Petitioner is expressly warned that failure to timely file a response to this Order to Show Cause or to file Objections to the Report and Recommendation will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed either with or without prejudice for failure to prosecute and obey court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), as well as for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation. The Clerk of Court is directed to re-mail a copy of the August 21, 2025 Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 6) and this Order to Petitioner at both 712 E. Fredricks St., Barstow, CA 92311 and 425 S. 2nd Ave., Barstow, CA 92311-2891.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:25-cv-01557-MEMF-AJR Date: September 16, 2025 Page 4 of 4

Title: Keilyn Lorenz Ellis v. Sheriff Shannon Dicus, et al.

Attachment: Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. 6). Notice of Filing Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 7).