Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Jamie Osuna, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Gustavo Hernandez. Defendant moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a plausible claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court reviewed the motion and determined that the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with the notice required by Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998).
The Ninth Circuit in Rand requires that pro se prisoner litigants receive specific notice regarding the requirements to oppose a motion for summary judgment, including the necessity of submitting evidentiary support. The court cited Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 936, for the proposition that this notice must be provided at the time a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment is filed. Because the defendant failed to provide this notice, the court intervened to protect the plaintiff's procedural rights.
The order arises in the Eastern District of California, where Local Rule 260 governs the requirements for opposing motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication. The court's sua sponte review of the motion to dismiss revealed the omission of the mandatory Rand notice, prompting the court to issue this procedural order rather than proceed directly to the merits of the motion.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered the defendant to file and serve the plaintiff with the Rand notice and a copy of Local Rule 260 by November 3, 2026. Local Rule 260 addresses the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication in the Eastern District of California. The court emphasized that this notice is mandatory for pro se prisoners facing dispositive motions.
The court established a new briefing schedule contingent on service of the notice: the plaintiff has thirty days from service of the Rand notice and Local Rule 260 to file an opposition or notice of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss. If the plaintiff files an opposition, the defendant shall have ten days from that filing to submit a reply. The court did not rule on the merits of the motion to dismiss, which remains pending.
The order explicitly relies on Rand v. Rowland and Woods v. Carey to establish that the notice requirement applies to both motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment when the opposing party is a pro se prisoner. The court's directive ensures that the plaintiff receives the procedural protections mandated by the Ninth Circuit before being required to respond to the dispositive motion.
Key Takeaways
- Pro se prisoner litigants in the Ninth Circuit must receive a Rand notice explaining the consequences of failing to oppose a dispositive motion with evidence.
- The notice requirement applies to both motions for summary judgment and motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court sua sponte enforces compliance with Rand by ordering the moving party to provide the notice and local rules.
- Briefing schedules on dispositive motions are stayed until the pro se prisoner receives proper Rand notice.
- Failure to provide Rand notice does not result in denial of the motion but triggers a procedural cure period.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the procedural safeguards the Ninth Circuit imposes to ensure pro se prisoners understand the evidentiary burden required to survive dispositive motions. By mandating service of the Rand notice and Local Rule 260, the court ensures that a prisoner's failure to oppose a motion is knowing and voluntary rather than a product of ignorance regarding the summary judgment standard. The decision reinforces that courts bear an affirmative obligation to protect unrepresented litigants from forfeiting claims due to procedural technicalities.
The order also demonstrates the practical operation of Rand in the Eastern District of California, where Local Rule 260 supplements the Ninth Circuit's notice requirement. By requiring the defendant to provide both the Rand notice and the local rule, the court ensures that the pro se plaintiff has access to all relevant procedural guidance before responding to the motion to dismiss. This approach reflects the court's commitment to fairness in prisoner litigation and serves as a reminder to defendants that procedural compliance with Rand is not optional.