David Lee Daniel v. Mark Ihde, Sheriff, Sonoma County Jail

990 F.2d 1256 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. David Lee DANIEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mark IHDE, Sheriff, Sonoma County Jail; et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-16543. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 7, 1993. * Decided April 16, 1993. Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 David Lee Daniel, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's order denying his motion to compel discovery, granting summary judgment to appellees, and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we vacate the district court's order and remand for further proceedings. 3 We review do novo the grant of summary judgment. Hopkins v. Andaya, 958 F.2d 881, 884 (9th Cir.1992). Before entering summary judgment, district courts are obligated to advise pro se prisoner litigants of the requirements of the summary judgment rule, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.…