United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2022

(PC) Taylor v. Commissioner of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

(PC) Taylor v. Commissioner of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided July 21, 2022
(PC) Taylor v. Commissioner of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PRESTON TAYLOR, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00798-DAD-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 13 v. ) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, TO RE-FILING WITH PROPER ) COMMISSIONER OF CALIFORNIA RAND NOTICE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND ) REHABILITATION, et al., ) (ECF No. 69) ) 16 ) Defendants. ) 17 ) 18 Plaintiff Preston Taylor is proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20 On July 18, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.

21 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 Defendants’ motion reveals that they 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). In particular, Defendants failed to advise Plaintiff of the contents of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and the applicable Eastern District of California Local Rule requirements, i.e., Local Rule 260. Rand, at 961. Accordingly, the Court must deny the || entire motion, without prejudice, because the Rand notice is required to be filed simultaneously with tl |}motion. Id. at 960.

3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 69) is DENIED WITHOU 5 PREJUDICE; 6 2. Defendants are granted an extension of time, shall file the motion for summary judgme 7 within seven (7) days of the date of entry of this order, and shall provide Plaintiff wi 8 the appropriate Rand notice; and 9 3. After the time for Defendants to file a properly noticed motion for summary judgmer 10 Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to file a response.

12 |} ITIS SO ORDERED.

A (Fe 13 Dated: _ July 20, 2022 OF 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.