SCHEDULING ORDER; NOTICE REGARDING LEGAL HELP DESK, HANDBOOK FOR LITIGANTS WITHOUT A LAWYER, AND LEGAL STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS

LAUREL BEELER, Magistrate Judge.

I. SCHEDULING ORDER

In reviewing the docket, the court noticed another error. The docket sheet reflects that the court's standard notice to pro se litigants about the legal standards for summary judgment was sent to Ms. Krushwitz on April 13, 2012. See ECF No. 25. But in clicking through to the electronic record, it appears that the clerk accidentally re-filed the order allowing Ms. Krushwitz to proceed in forma pauperis. Compare id. to ECF No. 6 (identical earlier-filed notice). The notice sent to Ms. Krushwitz, however, did contain the court's Handbook for Litigants Without a Lawyer and the flyer for the court's Legal Help Center. See Attachment to ECF No. 25.

The court's standard notice is required for prisoners proceeding pro se. See, e.g., Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 955-56 (9th Cir. 1998((en banc); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d. 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). But as the Rutter Guide points out, providing special notice to a pro se opponent provides benefits. See William W. Schwarzer, A. Wallace Tashima & James M. Wagstaffe, Cal. Prac. Guide: Fed. Civ. Pro. Before Trial § 14:73.3 (The Rutter Group 2012). And given that the court tried to give notice here, the court determines that there is a value in issuing the notice properly and giving Ms. Krushwitz an opportunity — with the benefit of the notice — to resubmit her opposition if she wants to.

Accordingly, the court vacates the hearing set for July 5, 2011. Ms. Krushwitz may do one of two things. First, she may file an new opposition and a new declaration. If she does this, she should state in the opening paragraph of her new opposition that she is withdrawing her previously-filed opposition and declaration that are reflected in the clerk's docket at entries. 36 and 37. Second, and alternatively, she may file a notice that she elects to rely on her existing filings. If Ms. Krushwitz files a new opposition, the University may file a new optional reply one week later. It also may rely on its existing reply (and should file a notice advising the court of that decision).

The revised schedule is as follows:

If the new hearing date is not convenient for the parties, they may confer on a better date and contact courtroom deputy Lashanda Scott at 415-522-3140 to schedule a better date. Absent further order of the court, the filing deadlines will remain the same.

II. NOTICE TO PRO SE LITIGANT

Because you are representing yourself in this case, the Court issues this notice to you about legal resources available to you and the legal standard that applies to summary judgment motions.

A. Resources Available to You

The court previously sent you a copy of the district court's Handbook for Litigants Without a Lawyer. See Attachment to ECF No. 25. It also is available on the court's website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/prosehandbk. The handbook provides instructions on how to proceed at every stage of your case, including discovery, motions, and trial.

Also, you may wish to seek assistance from the Legal Help Center, a free service of the Volunteer Legal Services Program, by calling 415-782-9000, extension 8657, or by signing up for an appointment on the 15th Floor of the Federal Courthouse in San Francisco, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. At the Legal Help Center, you will be able to speak with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help but not representation. The court previously provided you with a copy of the Legal Help Center's flyer. Id.

B. Summary Judgment

The following is a notice that this Court gives to litigants representing themselves when the other files a motion for summary judgment. Because your case has just been filed, no motion has been filed yet, but this notice will explain to you the process if a motion is filed.

If the other party in this case files a motion for summary judgment, that motion — if granted — will result in the dismissal of your case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact. What that means is that if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which ends your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony),1 you cannot just rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts in Defendant's declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, the Court might — if it is appropriate — enter summary judgment against you and in favor of the other party.

If the Court grants summary judgment in favor of the other party, your case will be dismissed, and there will be no trial. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). You should read Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (which discusses how the party who opposes summary judgment must come forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every essential element of his claim). If you do not file your opposition, the Court still will consider whether summary judgment is appropriate under Rule 56, but your failure may be construed as consent by you to this Court's granting the other party's motion for summary judgment. That in turn will result in the dismissal of your case before trial. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994).