Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00012/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00012-2/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE GOMEZ,

CDCR #AG-3761,

Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 11cv0012 BTM (JMA)

ORDER PROVIDING NOTICE TO

PRO SE PRISONER OF

REQUIREMENTS FOR OPPOSING

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PURSUANT TO

KLINGELE / RAND

 vs.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, et al., 

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

Defendant Carpenter has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P.

56 [ECF No. 40], by which he seeks to have your case dismissed. A Motion for Summary

Judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case.

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

1

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

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

411 (quotations omitted). “It would not be realistic to impute to a prison inmate ... an instinctual

awareness that the purpose of a motion for summary judgment is to head off a full-scale trial by

conducting a trial in miniature, on affidavits, so that not submitting counter affidavits is the equivalent

of not presenting any evidence at trial.” Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 n.4 (9th Cir. 1986)

(internal quotation omitted). 

- 1 - 11cv0012 BTM (JMA)

Case 3:11-cv-00012-BTM-JMA Document 41 Filed 09/17/12 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

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 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment has

been calendared for hearing on Friday, October 26, 2012, in Courtroom 15 at 11:00 a.m. Your

Opposition (including any supporting documents) must be filed with the Court and served upon

Defendant Carpenter by Friday, October 12, 2012. If you do not wish to oppose Defendant’s

Motion, you should file and serve a “Notice of Non-Opposition” by that same date to let both

the Court and the Defendant know his Motion is unopposed. 

If you do file and serve an Opposition, Defendant Carpenter must file and serve his Reply

to that Opposition by Friday, October 19, 2012.

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 15, 2012 

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

- 2 - 11cv0012 BTM (JMA)

Case 3:11-cv-00012-BTM-JMA Document 41 Filed 09/17/12 Page 2 of 2