Rafael Arreola v. M.O. Mangaong

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Rafael Arreola v. M.O. Mangaong, 65 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 1995)
33 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 588; 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7229; 95 Daily Journal DAR 12350; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 25825; 1995 WL 539811

Rafael Arreola v. M.O. Mangaong

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

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.

Reference

Full Case Name
Rafael ARREOLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M.O. MANGAONG, Defendant-Appellee
Cited By
32 cases
Status
Published