Arreola v. Mangaong, 94-56102
| Decision Date | 05 September 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-56102,94-56102 |
| Citation | 65 F.3d 801 |
| Parties | , 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7229, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,350 Rafael ARREOLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M.O. MANGAONG, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Rafael Arreola, pro se, Imperial, CA, for plaintiff-appellant.
Sara Turner, Deputy Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
Before: GOODWIN, WIGGINS, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.
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.
* 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rand v. Rowland
...Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 56") adopted in Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir.1988), and modified in Arreola v. Mangaong, 65 F.3d 801 (9th Cir.1995), to require that the notice be given only by the district court itself. The three-judge panel ("panel") held that remand was r......
- Golden Eagle Ins. Co. v. Travelers Companies
- Golden Eagle Ins. Co. v. Travelers Companies
-
Rand v. Rowland
...notice and explanation as to what a Rule 56 motion is and what the litigant's responsibilities are thereunder. Arreola v. Mangaong, 65 F.3d 801, 802 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (holding that pro se prisoner litigant was entitled to notification of requirements of summary judgment rule by tr......