(PC) Taylor v. Commissioner of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 21, 20221:20-cv-00798California379 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

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

11 PRESTON TAYLOR, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00798-DAD-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 13 v. ) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, TO RE-FILING WITH PROPER

) 14 COMMISSIONER OF CALIFORNIA RAND NOTICE

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND )

15 REHABILITATION, et al., ) (ECF No. 69) ) 16 ) Defendants. ) 17 )

18 Plaintiff Preston Taylor is proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On July 18, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. 21 In Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2012), the Ninth Circuit held that a pro se 22 prisoner plaintiff must be provided with “fair notice” of the requirements for opposing a motion for 23 summary judgment at the time the motion is brought. Review of Defendants’ motion reveals that they 24 did not provide Plaintiff with a Rand notice upon the filing of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.