Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02039/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02039-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Baley
Defendant
Gomez
Defendant
Hidden
Defendant
Maldonado
Defendant
Murphy
Defendant
Rodriguez
Defendant
Sanchez
Defendant
Jeremiah D. Vickers
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 Jeremiah D. Vickers, a state prisoner, is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a 

United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 6, 20.)

On November 29, 2016, Defendants Baley, Gomez, Hidden, Maldonado, Murphy, Rodriguez, 

Sanchez filed a combined motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 44.) They also filed a request for 

judicial notice in support of that motion. (ECF No. 45.)

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). Although a notice of motion was filed, 

JEREMIAH D. VICKERS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SGT. MALDONADO, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-02039-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REQUEST 

FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE RAND

NOTICE

[ECF No. 44]

Case 1:14-cv-02039-SAB Document 46 Filed 12/01/16 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

(ECF No. 44, pp. 1-2), it does not contain the information required, in the format required, as 

explained by the Ninth Circuit in Rand. See id. at 961 (notice must apprise prisoner of what is required 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, including right to file counter-affidavits or other responsive 

evidentiary materials, and effect of losing on summary judgment, in clear language and in a clear and 

conspicuous manner.)

Since Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with the required notice concurrent with the filing 

of the motion for summary judgment and request for judicial notice in support of that motion, 

Defendants’ motion and related judicial notice request shall be denied, without prejudice, subject to 

refiling with the appropriate notice to Plaintiff. Wood v. Carey, 684 F.3d at 936, 938-941.

The Court is in receipt of Defendants’ courtesy copy of Plaintiff’s deposition provided in 

compliance with Local Rule 133(j). Defendants are advised that they need not provide another copy of 

that deposition to the Court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 44), is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE;

2. Defendants’ request for judicial notice, (ECF No. 45) is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE;

2. Defendants shall file their motion for summary judgment and request for judicial notice 

within fourteen (14) 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 re-filed motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02039-SAB Document 46 Filed 12/01/16 Page 2 of 2