Moreno

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES A. DANIELS, Case No.: 22-CV-1263-JO-KSC

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER PROVIDING NOTICE

13 vs. TO PRO SE PRISONER OF

REQUIREMENTS FOR OPPOSING

14 A. MORENO, et al.,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

15 PURSUANT TO Defendants. KLINGELE / RAND 16

17 18 This notice is required to be given to Plaintiff pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 19 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) and Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 20 1988):1 21 Defendants Lechuga and Moreno filed a Motion for Summary Judgment under 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Doc. No. 66. Defendants’ Motion for Summary 23 Judgment will, if granted, end your case. Rule 56 tells you what you must do to oppose a 24 Motion for Summary Judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there 25

26 27 1 Klingele and Rand together require the district court “as a bare minimum,” to ensure that a pro se prisoner has “fair notice of the requirements of the summary…