Olusesan J. Adesanya, Plaintiff-appellant, v. B. S. Gunn; Mangoang, Dr.; C. O. Mcewen; D'arcy, Sgt.,defendants-appellees, 60 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 1995)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Olusesan J. Adesanya, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants in Adesanya's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, excessive force, denial of due process, and wrongful denial of his request to transfer to a typing course. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291,¹  and we vacate and remand.

Before entering summary judgment, " [d]istrict courts are obligated to advise prisoner pro se litigants of [Fed. R. Civ. P. ] 56 requirements." Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). The district court must advise a pro se prisoner that he or she must submit responsive evidence in opposition to a summary judgment motion. Id. at 411. A court may not avoid giving the required advice based on a determination that a prisoner has the requisite sophistication in legal matters. Id.

Here, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment supported by medical records, test scores, prison policy, and affidavits of two defendants. Adesanya failed to file an opposition to defendants' motion. A review of the record reveals that the district court failed to advise Adesanya that, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e), he had to submit responsive evidence to survive defendants' motion for summary judgment. Because Adesanya did not receive fair notice of the requirements of Rule 56, we vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment. On remand, the district court should advise Adesanya of the Rule 56 requirements and give him an opportunity to respond to defendants' summary judgment motion. See id. at 411-12.

VACATED and REMANDED.²