Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06098/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06098-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

I 

I, 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DAVE GEBRON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appea-is 

Tenth Circuit 

AUG - 8 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) No. 90-6098 

vs. ) 

) 

RICHARD R. SIMON; STEPHEN P. FRIOT;) 

and THE LAW FIRM OF SPRADLING, ) 

ALPERN, FRIOT & GUM, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

(D.C. No. Civ-89-1094-T) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK and EBEL, Circuit Judge. ** 

Plaintiff-appellant, Dave Gebron, instituted this diversity 

action, prose, in the district court against defendantsappellees, Richard Simon, Stephen Friot and the latter's law firm, 

alleging (1) breach of contract, (2) fraud, (3) professional 

misconduct and (4) deprivation of due process. In a thorough 

order attached hereto, the district court granted defendants-

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-6098 Document: 010110040734 Date Filed: 08/08/1990 Page: 1 
appellees' motion for summary judgment concluding that Gebron had 

failed to raise any issue of material fact for a jury's 

consideration. We have carefully reviewed both the parties' 

briefs and appellate record and affirm substantially for the 

reasons stated in the district court's order. We believe it 

desirable, however, to comment briefly upon Gebron's claim that he 

was not afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond to the 

summary judgment motion. 

The Supreme Court recently stated in Celotex Corp. v. 

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986), that Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) 

"mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for 

discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a 

showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element 

essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear 

the burden of proof at trial." While the movant continues to have 

the initial responsibility of informing the court as to the 

evidence's insufficiency, Celotex emphasized that Rule 56 does not 

require a defendant to support a summary judgment motion "with 

affidavits or other similar materials negating the opponent's 

claim. " Id. at 323. 

In this case, however, the defendants-appellees did furnish 

the district court with evidence to refute Gebron's claims. 

Gebron responded with the statement that "(p]laintiff is prepared 

to establish that all claims in original petition are valid and 

with merit." Rec. vol. I, doc. 17. If Gebron was prepared to 

establish the validity of his claims, then was the time to do it. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6098 Document: 010110040734 Date Filed: 08/08/1990 Page: 2 
His assertion that he was unaware of the need to submit his 

evidence in opposition to the motion for summary judgment is 

unpersuasive. Over six months before the district court granted 

summary judgment, counsel for defendants-appellees sent Gebron a 

copy of the local court rules and inquired as to whether Gebron 

had access to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 

doc. 39. Although they are entitled to some leeway in following 

proper procedure, neither the district court nor opposing counsel 

are burdened with the responsibility of "spoon feeding" prose 

litigants. Gebron, while appearing prose, is "still required to 

have an awareness of and comply with relevant procedural and 

substantive rules of law." Casper v. Commissioner of Internal 

Rev., 805 F.2d 902, 906 n.3 (10th Cir. 1986). Because Gebron 

possessed the local rules of court and presumably had access to 

the rules of procedure to assist him in responding to the motion 

for summary judgment, he cannot now cry foul. 

Gebron's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and 

the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6098 Document: 010110040734 Date Filed: 08/08/1990 Page: 3