Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Rafael Arreola v. M.O. Mangaong

Rafael Arreola v. M.O. Mangaong, 65 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 1995)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1995-09-13
Topic
litigation

How later courts describe this case

  • reversing and remanding case where summary, judgment movant had provided pro se prisoner with notice of Rule 56’s requirements

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Rafael Arreola v. M.O. Mangaong. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
32 opinions
ARREOLA v. MANGAONG,65 F.3d 801(9th Cir. 1995)
Rafael ARREOLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M.O. MANGAONG, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 94-56102.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 5, 1995fn*.
Decided September 13, 1995.
Page 802
Rafael Arreola, pro se, Imperial, CA, for plaintiff-appellant.

Sara Turner, Deputy Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
Before: GOODWIN, WIGGINS, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] 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 byKlingele 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 toKlingeleand Rule 56,Klingelerequires that the notice be provided by the district court.See id.

[2] VACATED and REMANDED.
  1. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P.34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. Accordingly, Arreola's request for oral argument is denied. ↩