Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00150/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00150-10/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

 Although the motion was also brought on behalf of defendant Runnels, he was

1

dismissed from this action by Order, filed on September 12, 2006, adopting the Findings and

Recommendations, filed on August 16, 2006.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID SHAVER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S- 05-0150 FCD GGH P

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Pending before the court is defendant Nauman’s motion for summary judgment to which 1

plaintiff has filed an opposition. This matter was originally filed in the Central District and was

subsequently transferred to the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California, after which

it was ultimately transferred to this, the Sacramento Division. See Order, filed in the Central

District on October 24, 2004; see also, Order, filed on January 24, 2005, and filings docketed in

this court, dated December 8, 2004. As a preliminary matter in considering the pending

dispositive motion, this court conducted a review of the filings in the other district and divisions

Case 2:05-cv-00150-FCD-GGH Document 57 Filed 02/20/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

and has determined that no Klingele, infra, notice was provided to plaintiff either at the time

when such notice is provided by this court as a matter of course, that is, in the service order of

the action, or at any time before or after. Moreover, no such notice has been provided subsequent

to the transfer of this case, and the court’s review demonstrates that defendants’ notice of motion

for summary judgment is inadequate to meet the notice requirements of Rand v. Rowland, 154

F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1035 (1999), and Klingele v.

Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988). 

The Ninth Circuit has observed that its precedents demonstrate that “the district

court bears the responsibility of assuring that a pro se prisoner litigant receives fair notice of

summary judgment requirements.” Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2003),

citing Rand, supra, 154 F.3d at 960. In Rand, the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed the bright-line

“decade-old rule under Klingele that a pro se prisoner must be given fair notice of the

requirements of Rule 56,” 154 F3d at 961-962, but allowed that “such notice may be given by

the moving party....” Id., at 962. However, in order to be sufficient, the notice provided by

defendants must meet the requirements of fair notice. Id. 

Rand requires that the prisoner be “informed of his or her right to

file counter-affidavits or other responsive evidentiary materials and

be alerted to the fact that failure to do so might result in the entry

of summary judgment against the prisoner.” 154 F.3d at 960. The

pro se prisoner must be “informed of the effect of losing on

summary judgment.” Id. The notice should also state that if the

pro se prisoner fails to controvert the moving party with opposing

counter-affidavits or other evidence the moving party’s evidence

might be taken as the truth, and final judgment may be entered

against the prisoner without a trial.

Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d at 1114 n. 6.

As noted, in this case, the court’s review of the record indicates that neither the

court nor defendants have met the requirements of fair notice to plaintiff with respect to the

pending motion. Therefore, the undersigned will set forth the notice routinely provided to pro se

litigants before this court. In addition, the court must deny the pending summary judgment

Case 2:05-cv-00150-FCD-GGH Document 57 Filed 02/20/07 Page 2 of 4
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

 A motion or opposition supported by unsigned affidavits or declarations will be 2

stricken.

3

motion, which it does without prejudice to its being re-noticed, after plaintiff has had the

opportunity, within thirty (30) days of the filing of this order, to file any supplement to his

opposition. At the end of that period, whether plaintiff has filed any supplemental opposition or

not, defendant will be directed to re-notice the summary judgment motion and the matter will be

deemed submitted. If defendant wishes to file a reply to any supplemental opposition, she may

do so, along with the re-notice, within 45 days of the filing of this order. 

Pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), cert.

denied, 527 U.S. 1035 (1999), and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988), plaintiff

is advised of the following requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment made by

defendants pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such a motion is a

request for an order for judgment in favor of defendants without trial. A defendant’s motion for

summary judgment will set forth the facts that the defendants contend are not reasonably subject

to dispute and that entitle the defendants to judgment. To oppose a motion for summary

judgment, plaintiff must show proof of his or her claims. Plaintiff may do this in one or more of

the following ways. Plaintiff may rely upon statements made under the penalty of perjury in the

complaint if the complaint shows that plaintiff has personal knowledge of the matters stated and

plaintiff calls to the court’s attention those parts of the complaint upon which plaintiff relies. 

Plaintiff may serve and file one or more affidavits or declarations setting forth the facts that

plaintiff believes prove plaintiff’s claims; the person who signs an affidavit or declaration must

have personal knowledge of the facts stated. Plaintiff may rely upon written records, but 2

plaintiff must prove that the records are what plaintiff claims they are. Plaintiff may rely upon all

or any part of the transcript of one or more depositions, answers to interrogatories, or admissions

obtained in this proceeding. If plaintiff fails to contradict the defendants’ evidence with

Case 2:05-cv-00150-FCD-GGH Document 57 Filed 02/20/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

counteraffidavits or other admissible evidence, the defendants’ evidence may be taken as the

truth and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment granted. If there is some good reason

why such facts are not available to plaintiff when required to oppose a motion for summary

judgment, the court will consider a request to postpone considering the defendants’ motion. If

plaintiff does not serve and file a written opposition to the motion or a request to postpone

consideration of the motion, the court may consider the failure to act as a waiver of opposition to

the defendants’ motion. If the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, whether opposed or

unopposed, is granted, judgment will be entered for the defendants without a trial and the case

will be closed.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ August 14, 2006, motion for summary judgment is denied without

prejudice to its re-notice by the remaining defendant, upon the expiration of time plaintiff is

herein provided to supplement his opposition to the defendant’s dispositive motion;

2. Plaintiff, provided herein with fair notice of the requirements for opposing a

motion for summary judgment, must file any supplement to his opposition within thirty days; and

3. Should plaintiff file any supplemental opposition, defendant may file any reply

along with the re-notice of the motion for summary judgment, within 45 days of the filing of this

order.

4. Should plaintiff fail to file any supplemental opposition within thirty days of

the date of this order, defendant is directed to re-notice the motion for summary judgment upon

expiration of that time period, or in any event, within 45 days of the date of this order, and the

matter will be deemed submitted.

DATED: 2/20/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

shav0150.ord

Case 2:05-cv-00150-FCD-GGH Document 57 Filed 02/20/07 Page 4 of 4