Levi Martinez, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Richard A. Vernon, Director; Dave Paskett, Warden; Arvonj. Arave, Defendants-appellees, 999 F.2d 543 (9th Cir. 1993)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 999 F.2d 543 (9th Cir. 1993) Submitted July 6, 1993. *Decided July 14, 1993

Before TANG, POOLE and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Idaho state prisoner Levi Martinez appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of prison officials in Martinez's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging his civil rights were violated when prison officials did not protect him from a prison fight or provide adequate medical care, and held him in segregation without due process. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1044 (9th Cir. 1989). Before entering summary judgment, district courts are obligated to advise pro se prisoner litigants of the requirements for summary judgment rule under, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). Courts must advise pro se prisoner litigants that they need to submit responsive evidence to ward off summary judgment under Rule 56(e). Id. at 411. Courts cannot avoid giving the required advice based on a determination that a prisoner has the requisite sophistication in legal matters. Id.

Here, the district court granted the appellant's motion for summary judgment without advising Martinez of the requirements of Rule 56(e). Accordingly, we vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand. See id.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

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