(PC) Petillo v. Jasso

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ISAIAH J. PETILLO, Case No. 1:21-cv-01401-JLT-SAB (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT OCHOA’S TO RE-SERVE AND FILE 12 v. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH PROPER RAND NOTICE REYNALDO JASSO, et al., (ECF No. 36) 14 Defendants.

16 Plaintiff Isaiah J. Petillo is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983.

18 On November 14, 2022, Defendant Ochoa filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 36.)

20 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 Defendant did not provide Plaintiff with the proper Rand notice. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 24 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). In particular, Defendant failed to advise Plaintiff of the contents of any applicable Eastern District of California Local Rule requirements, i.e., Local Rule 260; Rand, 154 F.3d 961. Plaintiff is entitled to service of the notice concurrently with the motion, Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 938-41 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d at 960-61, in order to properly file an opposition if so desired, Labatad v. Corrections Corp. of America, 714 F.3d 1 | 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam).

2 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Within ten (10) days from the date of service of this order, Defendant shall serve 4 Plaintiff (and the Court) with the motion for summary judgment along with the 5 proper Rand notice; and 6 2. Defendant’s failure to properly serve the motion for summary judgment along 7 with the proper Rand notice will result in denial of the motion by the assigned 8 District Judge. i IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le | Dated: _November 16, 2022 _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE