Rafael Arreola v. M.O. Mangaong
65 F.3d 801·95 Daily Journal DAR 12350·1995 WL 539811·33 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 588·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 25825
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 13, 199594-56102California101 words
Opinion
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.