1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 LAWTIS DONALD RHODEN, ) Case No.: 1:18-cv-00101-LJO-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 13 v. ) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, TO RE-FILING WITH PROPER

) 14 DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS, RAND NOTICE et al., ) 15 Defendants. ) [ECF No. 63] ) 16 )

17 Plaintiff Lawtis Donald Rhoden is a civil detainee appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On October 7, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. 20 In Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012), the Ninth Circuit held that a pro se 21 prisoner plaintiff must be provided with “fair notice” of the requirements for opposing a motion for 22 summary judgment at the time the motion is brought. Review of Defendant Garcia’s motion shows 23 that he did not provide Plaintiff with a Rand notice upon the filing of the motion for summary 24 judgment. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). In particular, Defendants failed to 25 advise Plaintiff of the contents of the applicable Eastern District of California Local Rule 26 requirements, i.e., Local Rule 260. Rand, at 961. Accordingly, the Court must deny the entire motion, 27 without prejudice, because the Rand notice is required to be filed simultaneously with the motion. Id. 28 at 960. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 63) is DENIED WITHOU 3 PREJUDICE; 4 2. Defendants are granted an extension of time, shall file the motion for summa 5 judgment within seven (7) days of the date of entry of this order, and shall provic 6 Plaintiff with the appropriate Rand notice; and 7 3. After the time for Defendants to file a properly noticed motion for summary judgmer 8 Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to file a response. 9 10 IS SO ORDERED. A (re 11 || Dated: _ October 8, 2019 OF 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28