Salomone v. Gookin

Full title: William SALOMONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kathleen GOOKIN; William…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 16, 1996

94 F.3d 652 (9th Cir. 1996)

Opinion

94 F.3d 652 (9th Cir. 1996) William SALOMONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kathleen GOOKIN; William Mendoza, Correctional Counselor II; Lee Dudly, Lt.; Donald Vest, Correctional Counselor II; Chuck Law, Grievance Coordinator, Tim Delp, Correctional Program Manager; William Callahan, Superintendent MICC; Patrick Tice, Correctional Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-35167. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit August 16, 1996

Submitted August 12, 1996.

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Appeal from the United States District Court, for the Western District of Washington, D.C. No. CV-92-05150-RJB; Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding.

W.D.Wash.

VACATED.

Before: BROWNING, SCHROEDER, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3.

William Salomone, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendant prison officials in Salomone's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action alleging due process and equal protection violations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 937 (1990), and we vacate and remand.

Before entering summary judgment, "[d]istrict courts are obligated to advise prisoner pro per litigants of [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 56 requirements." Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir.1988).

Here, a review of the record indicates that the district court failed to give Salomone the requisite notice. See id. Accordingly, we vacate the district court's summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the district court should consider the applicability, if any, of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), to this appeal.

VACATED AND REMANDED. ¹

1 The district court also should consider Salomone's motions to compel production of documents on remand.

See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4.