(PC) Rood v. Lockwood

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA COLTON JAMES ROOD, No. 2:20-cv-0271 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ISAAC LOCKWOOD, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 63. However, it does not appear that they contemporaneously served plaintiff with a Rand Notice, as required by this court. See ECF No. 25 at 4, ¶ 11 (citing Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998)).

22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. Within twenty-four hours of receiving this order, defendants shall serve plaintiff with a Rand Notice, as required by the December 16, 2020 order. Failure to do so will result in a recommendation that the motion for summary judgment be denied; and //// //// //// ] 2. Plaintiff shall have twenty-one days from the service of the Rand Notice to file his || response to the motion for summary judgment.

3 | DATED: November 22, 2022 ~ 4 Chtten— Lhane ALLISON CLAIRE 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE