Rhoden v. Department of State Hospitals, 1:18-cv-00101-LJO-SAB (PC). (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20191009g03
Visitors: 10
Filed: Oct. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 08, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, TO RE-FILING WITH PROPER RAND NOTICE [ECF No. 63] STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Lawtis Donald Rhoden is a civil detainee appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On October 7, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. In Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 , 939 (9th Cir. 2012), the Ninth Circuit held that a pro se prisoner plaintif
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, TO RE-FILING WITH PROPER RAND NOTICE [ECF No. 63] STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Lawtis Donald Rhoden is a civil detainee appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On October 7, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. In Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 , 939 (9th Cir. 2012), the Ninth Circuit held that a pro se prisoner plaintiff..
More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, TO RE-FILING WITH PROPER RAND NOTICE
[ECF No. 63]
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Lawtis Donald Rhoden is a civil detainee appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On October 7, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
In Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012), the Ninth Circuit held that a pro se prisoner plaintiff must be provided with "fair notice" of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment at the time the motion is brought. Review of Defendant Garcia's motion shows that he did not provide Plaintiff with a Rand notice upon the filing of the motion for summary judgment. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). In particular, Defendants failed to advise Plaintiff of the contents of the applicable Eastern District of California Local Rule requirements, i.e., Local Rule 260. Rand, at 961. Accordingly, the Court must deny the entire motion, without prejudice, because the Rand notice is required to be filed simultaneously with the motion. Id. at 960.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 63) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
2. Defendants are granted an extension of time, shall file the motion for summary judgment within seven (7) days of the date of entry of this order, and shall provide Plaintiff with the appropriate Rand notice; and
3. After the time for Defendants to file a properly noticed motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to file a response.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
