Lee A. Rand v. James Rowland Nadim Khoury, M.D., William Bunnell Roy Lee Johnson Leo R. Estes
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by Judge TASHIMA; Concurrence by Judge REINHARDT; Concurrence by Judge THOMAS; Dissent by Judge KLEINFELD.
TASHIMA, Circuit Judge:
We address the continued viability and application of the “pro se prisoner fair notice” requirement of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 56”) adopted in Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir.1988), and modified in Arreola v. Mangaong, 65 F.3d 801 (9th Cir.1995), to require that the notice be given only by the district court itself. The three-judge panel (“panel”) held that remand was required because the district court failed to…
Also in this document: Concurrence · Reinhardt; Concurrence · Thomas.
2Cases cited69 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
64 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2,666 opinions
- Javiad Akhtar v. J. MesaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Oscar W. Jones v. Lou Blanas County of SacramentoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Earnest Woods, II v. Tom CareyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Wyatt v. TerhuneCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- John Crowley v. Bruce BannisterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
2,661 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.