ARREOLA v. MANGAONG (1995)

United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.

Rafael ARREOLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M.O. MANGAONG, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 94-56102.

Decided: September 13, 1995

Before: GOODWIN, WIGGINS, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.

Rafael Arreola, pro se, Imperial, CA, for plaintiff-appellant. Sara Turner, Deputy Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for defendant-appellee.

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.

PER CURIAM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law