Case Name: Rafael ARREOLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M.O. MANGAONG, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1995-09-13
Citations: 65 F.3d 801
Docket Number: No. 94-56102
Parties: Rafael ARREOLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M.O. MANGAONG, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WIGGINS, and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 65
Pages: 801–802

Head Matter:
Rafael ARREOLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M.O. MANGAONG, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 94-56102.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 5, 1995 .
Decided Sept. 13, 1995.
Rafael Arreola, pro se, Imperial, CA, for plaintiff-appellant.
Sara Turner, Deputy Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for defendant-appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, WIGGINS, and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. Accordingly, Arreola’s request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rafael Arreola, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment for M.O. Mangaong, M.D. ("Dr. Mangaong"). We are compelled by Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir.1988), to vacate and remand because the district court did not advise Arreola, a pro se prisoner litigant, of the requirements of the summary judgment rule, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Although Dr. Mangaong argues that adequate notice was provided to Arreola by the citation in Dr. Mangaong's notice of motion to Klingele and Rule 56, Klingele requires that the notice be provided by the district court. See id.
VACATED and REMANDED.