Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00952/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00952-15/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

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

Plaintiff Juan Jaimes is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On October 3, 2016, Defendant Barnes filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 66.) 

On October 5, 2016, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, without prejudice, 

for failure to provide the Rand notice. (ECF No. 67.) 

On October 12, 2016, Defendant re-filed his motion for summary judgment, but neglected 

again to provide the Rand notice as required under Ninth Circuit precedent. (ECF No. 68.) 

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 the current motion shows that 

Defendants 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). Since Defendant failed to provide 

JUAN JAIMES,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DR. ROBERT J. BARNES, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00952-LJO-SAB (PC)

SECOND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 

BARNES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO PROVIDE RAND NOTICE

[ECF No. 68]

Case 1:14-cv-00952-LJO-SAB Document 70 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiff with the required notice concurrent with the filing of the motion, this motion shall be denied

without prejudice, subject to refiling with the appropriate notice to Plaintiff. Wood v. Carey, 684 F.3d 

at 936, 938-941. If Defendant re-files the motion for summary judgment without the adequate Rand 

notice, the motion is subject to denial without leave to re-file. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Barnes’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE;

2. Defendant shall file their 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. Plaintiff shall file his opposition to the motion for summary judgment within twenty 

one (21) days of the date of service of the motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00952-LJO-SAB Document 70 Filed 10/13/16 Page 2 of 2