Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02043/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02043-14/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DARRELL WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KEVIN BROWN, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:10-cv-02043-JAM-DAD 

ORDER PROVIDING NOTICE TO 

PARTIES OF COURT’S INTENTION TO 

GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN 

DEFENDANT’S FAVOR AND PROVIDING 

OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD 

The Court issues the following order to provide Plaintiff 

Darrell Williams (“Plaintiff”) reasonable notice of its intention 

to grant summary judgment sua sponte in Defendant Kevin Brown’s 

(“Defendant”) favor. 

“District courts unquestionably possess the power to enter 

summary judgment sua sponte, even on the eve of trial.” Norse v. 

City of Santa Cruz, 629 F.3d 966, 971 (9th Cir. 2010). However, 

“‘[s]ua sponte grants of summary judgment are only appropriate if 

the losing party has reasonable notice that the sufficiency of 

his or her claim will be in issue.’” Id. at 971-72 (quoting 

United States v. 14.02 Acres of Land More or Less in Fresno 

Cnty., 547 F.3d 943, 955 (9th Cir. 2008)). “‘Notice need not be 

Case 2:10-cv-02043-JAM-DB Document 88 Filed 07/24/15 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 

explicit. . . . A party is “fairly appraised” that the court 

will in fact be deciding a summary judgement [sic] motion if that 

party submits matters outside the pleadings to the judge and 

invites consideration of them.’” United States v. 14.02 Acres of 

Land More or Less in Fresno Cnty., 547 F.3d at 955 (quoting In re 

Rothery, 143 F.3d 546, 549 (9th Cir. 1998)). 

Here, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 

#32). Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd considered the motion on 

its merits and recommended the Court deny it (Doc. #34). After 

considering Plaintiff’s objections, the Court adopted the 

findings and recommendations in full (Doc. #37). After reviewing 

the record and Magistrate Judge Drozd’s findings and 

recommendations in preparation for the upcoming trial, the Court 

is now inclined to grant summary judgment sua sponte in 

Defendant’s favor. 

Magistrate Judge Drozd found that Plaintiff failed to meet 

the standard for summary judgment in his favor, considering the 

evidence in the light most favorable to Defendant. However, he 

went further and found “the evidence presented by plaintiff

fail[ed] to demonstrate that defendant Brown responded to 

plaintiff’s serious medical needs with deliberate indifference.” 

F&R at p. 8 (emphasis added). Magistrate Judge Drozd concluded 

that “based on plaintiff’s evidence, defendant Brown’s alleged 

misconduct on this one occasion cannot be said to amount to a 

failing of constitutional magnitude as a matter of law.” Id. 

(emphasis added). The Court agrees with this conclusion and now 

notifies the parties of its intent to grant judgment in 

Defendant’s favor. 

Case 2:10-cv-02043-JAM-DB Document 88 Filed 07/24/15 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 

Although the Court finds Plaintiff has already received 

“‘reasonable notice that the sufficiency of his [] claim will be 

in issue,’” the parties are hereby notified that the Court will 

provide an additional opportunity for them to be heard on the 

matter on the first day of trial, August 3, 2015. See Norse, 629 

F.3d at 971-72. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 7/24/2015 

 /s/ John A. Mendez_________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Case 2:10-cv-02043-JAM-DB Document 88 Filed 07/24/15 Page 3 of 3