FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALAN R. DOHNER, No. 09-57010
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:03-cv-01682-TJH-
MAN
v.
ROBERT DEPWEG; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees,
and
ROXANA BUDEANU; et al.,
Defendants,
ANGELICA BUDEANU, Non-Party in
Pro Se,
Movant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Terry J. Hatter, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Submitted July 17, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Alan R. Dohner, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations in connection with a criminal investigation. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. S.E.C. v. Nite, 207 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th
Cir. 2000) (per curiam). We vacate and remand.
Before summary judgment is granted in a pro se prisoner’s action, the pro se
prisoner must be provided with fair notice of the requirements of the summary
judgment rule. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960-61 (9th Cir. 1998) (en
banc); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). It is undisputed that Dohner, who was a
prisoner proceeding pro se at the time that summary judgment was filed, was not
provided with the notice required by Rand.
Contrary to appellees’ contention, the error was not harmless because
Dohner had not received Rand notice in prior recent litigation, and the record does
not disclose that he had a complete understanding of the requirements of Rule 56.
See Rand, 154 F.3d at 961-62 (explaining that “harmless error review is
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2 09-57010
inappropriate in most cases” and refusing to engage in “subjective scrutiny of the
prisoner’s pleadings”).
Therefore, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for further
proceedings.
Dohner’s pending motion to for leave to file a supplemental brief, filed on
February 29, 2012, is denied as moot.
VACATED and REMANDED.
3 09-57010