Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01025/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01025-13/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENELL CAVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. GOMEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO 

SERVE PLAINTIFF WITH RAND NOTICE 

WITHIN TEN DAYS AND PROVIDING 

PLAINTIFF WITH OPPORTUNITY TO FILE 

AMENDED OPPOSITION

(Docs. 76 and 78)

Plaintiff Denell Caver (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 20, 2011. This action 

is proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on April 10, 2012, against 

Defendants Gomez, Stark, and Garcia (“Defendants”) for acting with deliberate indifference to 

Plaintiff’s safety, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

On January 23, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which included the 

representation that a Rand notice would be served concurrently with the motion. Woods v. Carey, 

684 F.3d 934, 935-36 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960-61 (9th Cir. 1998). On 

February 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed an opposition in which he stated he was not served with a Rand

notice, and the Court was not able to locate the notice, either. Plaintiff is entitled to service of the 

notice concurrently with the motion, Woods, 684 F.3d at 938-41; Rand, 154 F.3d at 960-61, and 

this deficiency entitles him to an opportunity to file an amended opposition, Labatad v. 

Corrections Corp. of America, 714 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). 

Case 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO Document 81 Filed 02/19/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within ten (10) days from the date of service of this order, Defendants shall serve 

Plaintiff with a Rand notice;

2. Plaintiff may either (1) stand on the opposition he filed on February 11, 2015, or 

(2) file an amended opposition that is complete within itself;1and

3. If Plaintiff elects to file an amended opposition once he receives the Rand notice, 

he must do so within thirty (30) days from the date of service of the notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff is not required to file an amended opposition, but he is entitled to the opportunity to do so and the Court will 

not consider two separate oppositions. Therefore, if Plaintiff chooses to file an amended opposition, the opposition 

filed on February 11, 2015, will not be considered and it will be ordered stricken from the record.

Case 1:11-cv-01025-AWI-SKO Document 81 Filed 02/19/15 Page 2 of 2