Polk v. Cavin et al

Filing 160

ORDER PROVIDING RAND NOTICE RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 10, 2012. (mmcsecS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/10/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/10/2012: # 1 Certificate of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

) No. C 08-1483 MMC (PR)
)
) ORDER PROVIDING RAND NOTICE
Plaintiff,
) RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT
)
v.
)
)
JAMES CAVIN, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
_______________________________ )
SUSAN MAE POLK,

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held pro se prisoner
plaintiffs must be given a Rand notice at the time a summary judgment motion is filed, rather
than at an earlier stage of the proceedings such as in an order of service. See Woods v.
Carey, 2012 WL 2626912 (9th Cir. July 6, 2012); see also Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952
(9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (setting forth necessary elements of required written notice to be
provided to pro se prisoner litigants to apprise them of requirements to defeat summary
judgment motion). Accordingly, the Court provides herein for plaintiff’s information the
following notice in connection with defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment:
The defendants have made a motion for summary judgment by which they seek
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, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

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 in 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.
Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-63 (9th Cir. 1998).
As the deadline for plaintiff to file opposition to defendants’ pending motion for

8

summary judgment is August 15, 2012, plaintiff has ample time to prepare her opposition

9

with the above Rand notice in mind,1 and, consequently, no adjustment of the briefing

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

schedule is necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 10, 2012
_________________________
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

The Court also notes the above notice repeats verbatim the Rand notice provided in
the Court’s order of September 23, 2011. (See Order filed September 23, 2011 at 3).
2