Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01290/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01290-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Klingele and Rand together require the district court “as a bare minimum,” to ensure that a pro

se prisoner has “fair notice of the requirements of the summary judgment rule.” Klingele, 849 F.2d at

411 (quotations omitted); Rand, 154 F.3d at 962.

- 1 - 08cv1290 BTM (WVG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WHITTIER BUCHANAN,

CDCR #K-02554,

Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 08cv1290 BTM (WVG)

ORDER PROVIDING NOTICE 

TO PRO SE PRISONER OF

REQUIREMENTS FOR

OPPOSING SUMMARY

JUDGMENT PURSUANT 

TO KLINGELE / RAND

AND SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE 

 vs.

EDUARDO GARZA; LUI FUGA; ROY

BAKER; RICARDO LIMON; ANGEL

SALCEDO; HODGE,

Defendants.

This notice is required to be given to Plaintiff pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d

952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988):1

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 56. In turn,

Defendants Baker, Fuga, Garza, Hodge, Limon and Salcedo have filed a partial Motion for

Summary Judgment pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 56, by which they seek to have a portion of your

case dismissed. A Motion for Summary Judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure will, if granted, end your case.

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-01290-BTM-WVG Document 112 Filed 10/06/11 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 While this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo, for disposition pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and S.D. CAL. CIVLR 72.3, the Court has determined that a Report and

Recommendation regarding the pending dispositive motions is unnecessary. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR

72.3(a).

- 2 - 08cv1290 BTM (WVG)

Rule 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–

that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result of your case, and the

party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will

end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is

properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply rely on what

your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided by Rule 56(e), that

contradict the facts shown in the defendants’ 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, summary judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary

judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there will be no trial.

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment has been calendared for hearing on Friday, December 9, 2011, in

Courtroom 15.2

 Plaintiff’s Opposition (including any supporting documents) to Defendants’

Motion must be filed with the Court and served on all parties by Friday, November 25, 2011.

Defendants have already filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion. If you do not wish to oppose

Defendants’ Motion, you should file and serve a “Notice of Non-Opposition” by that same date

to let both the Court and Defendants know that the Motion is unopposed. All parties must file

their Reply to the respective Oppositions, if any, by Friday, December 2, 2011.

 At the time appointed for hearing, the Court will, in its discretion, consider Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 56 as submitted on the papers, and will

issue its written opinion soon thereafter. See S.D.CAL.CIVLR 7.1(d)(1). Thus, unless otherwise

Case 3:08-cv-01290-BTM-WVG Document 112 Filed 10/06/11 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 08cv1290 BTM (WVG)

ordered, no appearances are required and no oral argument will be heard. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 6, 2011 

 HON. BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ

 United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01290-BTM-WVG Document 112 Filed 10/06/11 Page 3 of 3