Parham

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHARLES PLUNKETT, No. 2:19-cv-1450 KJM AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER C. PARHAM, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 17, 2022, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 46. However, upon further review it does not appear that they contemporaneously served plaintiff with a Rand Notice, as required by this court. See ECF No. 31 at 6, ¶ 11 (warning that failure to contemporaneously serve plaintiff with a Rand Notice may constitute grounds for dismissal (citing Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998))). The Ninth Circuit has stressed the importance of pro se prisoners receiving a Rand Notice at the same time as the motion for summary judgment, and failure to provide contemporaneous notice is grounds for reversal. Woods, 684 F.3d at 939-41. …