Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Robert Louis Roseboro v. Sam P. Garrison, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Warden of Central Prison
Robert Louis Roseboro v. Sam P. Garrison, Individually & in His Off. Capacity as Warden of Cent. Prison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1975-10-15
- Topic
- bankruptcy
holding that a court must warn pro se plaintiffs that failure to oppose a motion can result in dismissal | holding that a pro se litigant must receive notice of the possibility of summary disposition st his case | holding that a pro se litigant must receive notice of the possibility of summary disposition of his case | holding that pro se litigants must be notified of right or responsibility to respond to dispositive motion before dismissing case | recognizing that pro se litigants must be notified of their right to respond to summary judgment requests | holding that court must provide notice of requirements of summary judgment rule before granting summary judgment against pro se litigant | holding that district courts must advise self-represented plaintiffs of the right to file extra-pleading materials when a defendant moves for summary judgment | holding that a pro se plaintiff must be informed of the potential consequence of summary judgment proceedings and his right to file responsive materials | holding that, before entering summary judgment against a pro se party, the Court must provide the party with fair notice of the requirements of the summary judgment rule | stating that a pro se plaintiff is entitled to form of notice recognized in Hudson as providing reasonable safeguard when confronted with possible summary judgment | holding that before summary judgment is entered against a pro se litigant, the court must notify him of his right to file counteraffidavits or other appropriate materials, and give him a reasonable opportunity to respond | finding that the court must inform a pro se plaintiff of his right to file material in response to a motion for summary judgment | requiring that “the [pro se] plaintiff be advised of his right to file counter-affidavits or other responsive material” | holding pro se plaintiffs should be advised of their right to file responsive material to a motion for summary judgment | reasoning that pro se plaintiffs should be advised of their right to file responsive material to a motion for summary judgment | requiring that the court provide explanation of dismissal/summary judgment procedures to pro se litigants | requiring the court to provide an explanation of the dismissal and summary judgment procedures to pro se litigants | requiring notice of right to respond and that failure to do so may result in adverse ruling | requiring the court to provide an explanation of the dismissal and summary judgment procedures to pro se litigants | requiring the court to provide an explanation of the dismissal and summary judgment procedures to pro se litigants | requiring the court to provide an explanation of the dismissal and summary judgment procedures to pro se litigants | requiring the court to provide an explanation of the dismissal and summary judgment procedures to pro se litigants | requiring the court to provide an explanation of the dismissal and summary judgment procedures to pro se litigants | requiring the court to provide an explanation of the dismissal and summary judgment procedures to pro se litigants | requiring the court provide an explanation of dismissal/summary judgment procedures to pro se litigants | reversing summary judgment in civil rights case where inmate plaintiff appearing pro se not advised of his right to file counter-affidavits and not warned that failure to respond could result in summary judgment’ | requiring the court provide explanation of dismissal/summary judgment procedures to pro se litigants | requiring the court provide explanation of dismissal/summary judgment procedures to pro se litigants | requiring the court provide explanation of dismissal/summary judgment procedures to pro se litigants | reversing award of summary judgment where pro se plaintiff was not “advised of his right to file counter-affidavits or other responsive material and alerted to the fact that his failure to so respond might result in the entry of summary judgment against him” | pro se
Citator
- Cited by
- 1468 opinions
Roy T. Stuckey, Columbia, S.C. [Court-assigned counsel], for appellant.
[2] Three of the allegations of Roseboro'spro secomplaint were directed at his custody classification and consequent transfer from Polk Youth Center to Central Prison, and the remaining allegations challenge his segregation from the general prison population, the conduct of the prison guards and the failure to furnish him certain medical treatment. In support of his summary motion the defendant submitted his own affidavit, together with the affidavits of other members of the prison staff bearing upon the allegations of the complaint. Finding that the affidavits were in compliance with Rule56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and noting that the plaintiff had failed to file any counter-affidavit controverting those submitted by the defendant, the district court concluded that summary judgment was appropriate.
[3] InWooten v. Shook,527 F.2d 976(4 Cir. 1975), we stated that "[w]hile we do not hold that an evidentiary hearing is required in every case such as this, the district court should ordinarily require that a dismissal or summary motion be supported by affidavit or other material sufficiently demonstrating that there is no factual issue and that dismissal is appropriate as a matter of law." In the present case, of course, the defendant has met this requirement and if this were an ordinary civil action the failure of Roseboro to file any counter-affidavit would warrant the entry of summary judgment. We agree with the plaintiff, however, that there is another side to the coin which requires that the plaintiff be advised of his right to file counter-affidavits or other responsive material and alerted to the fact that his failure to so respond might result in the entry of summary judgment against him. In our opinion the appropriate rule was set forth inHudson v. Hardy,134 U.S.App. D.C. 44,412 F.2d 1091,1094(1968), where the court stated:
"We hold that before entering summary judgment against appellant, the District Court, as a bare minimum, should have provided him with fair notice of the requirements of the summary judgment rule. We stress the need for a form of notice sufficiently understandable to one in appellant's circumstances fairly to apprise him of what is required."
[4] Assuredly, apro seplaintiff is entitled to such a reasonable safeguard when confronted with the possibility of summary disposition of his case.
[5] Since Roseboro was not represented by counsel in this case and there is nothing in the record to indicate that he was notified of his right or responsibility with respect to the defendant's motion, the judgment of the district court must be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[6]Reversed and remanded.Page 311