Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01401-10/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISAIAH J. PETILLO, 

Plaintiff,

v.

REYNALDO JASSO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01401-JLT-SAB (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT 

OCHOA’S TO RE-SERVE AND FILE 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

WITH PROPER RAND NOTICE

(ECF No. 36)

Plaintiff Isaiah J. Petillo is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983.

On November 14, 2022, Defendant Ochoa filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF 

No. 36.) 

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 Defendant did not provide Plaintiff with the proper Rand notice. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 

F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). In particular, Defendant failed to advise Plaintiff of the contents of any 

applicable Eastern District of California Local Rule requirements, i.e., Local Rule 260; Rand, 

154 F.3d 961. Plaintiff is entitled to service of the notice concurrently with the motion, Woods

v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 938-41 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d at 960-61, in order 

to properly file an opposition if so desired, Labatad v. Corrections Corp. of America, 714 F.3d 

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 37 Filed 11/16/22 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

1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

Plaintiff (and the Court) with the motion for summary judgment along with the 

proper Rand notice; and

2. Defendant’s failure to properly serve the motion for summary judgment along 

with the proper Rand notice will result in denial of the motion by the assigned 

District Judge. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2022 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 37 Filed 11/16/22 Page 2 of 2