Dennis James, Jr. v. J. Puga
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Dennis Lamar James, Jr. appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to all defendants on James’s excessive force claims and his Fourth Amendment claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
I
James argues that the district court did not comply with the requirements of Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc). Under Rand , the district court bears an “obligation] to advise prisoner' pro per litigants of Rule 56 requirements.” Rand, 154 F.3d at 956 (quoting Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-412 (9th Cir.1988)). Here, the district court mailed a Rand notice, but it was returned from the prison as undeliverable. No new notice was sent even though James had promptly provided notice of change of address.
However, Rand does not apply to this case because the record indicates that by the time the defendants filed their summary judgment motions, James was no longer incarcerated. See Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that notice of Rule 56 requirement is not required for non-incarcerated pro se litigants). Therefore, there was no Rand error.