Rafael Arreola v. M.O. Mangaong

Ninth Circuit

Rafael Arreola v. M.O. Mangaong

65 F.3d 801, 33 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 588, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7229, 95 Daily Journal DAR 12350, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 25825, 1995 WL 539811

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 13, 1995

Docket94-56102

StatusPublished

Cited by32 cases

This text of 65 F.3d 801 (Rafael Arreola v. M.O. Mangaong) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rafael Arreola v. M.O. Mangaong, 65 F.3d 801, 33 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 588, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7229, 95 Daily Journal DAR 12350, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 25825, 1995 WL 539811 (9th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

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.

97 F.3d 1459 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Kent W. Porter, Sr. v. Joan K. Ortiz Diann A. Smith Danny K. Marshall

95 F.3d 1158 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Michael Johnson v. E. Martin James Williams J. Anaya F. Foulk R.A. Ballard, Corrections Officers at Calipatria State Prison

95 F.3d 1157 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Howard Lee Vaughn, Jr. v. Dr. Thor Dr. Acker Dr. Desai Dr. Augusto Sychukok William N. Sandri, Dr. Yazdgerdi, Dr.

95 F.3d 1160 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Barrett v. Sublett

92 F.3d 1191 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Natividad Guajardo v. A. Kuecker, C/0 Sgt. Anderson Glen Johnson, Departmental Hearing Officer Idoc

91 F.3d 152 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Foote v. Nevada Dept. of Prisons

87 F.3d 1318 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

William Donald Harvey v. Robert Huffman

87 F.3d 1319 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 F.3d 801, 33 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 588, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7229, 95 Daily Journal DAR 12350, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 25825, 1995 WL 539811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rafael-arreola-v-mo-mangaong-ca9-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack