Caseflicks

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit • 1998

Lee A. Rand v. James Rowland Nadim Khoury, M.D., William Bunnell Roy Lee Johnson Leo R. Estes

154 F.3d 952 | 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6650 | 41 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1381 | 98 Daily Journal DAR 9270 | 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 20944

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Rand preserves robust Rule 56 protections for pro se prisoners: adequate, plain-language notice may come from either the court or the movant, but it must clearly warn that unsupported claims can be dismissed permanently without a trial.

Background

Lee A. Rand, a California prisoner proceeding without counsel, brought a § 1983 action against prison officials and medical personnel. After testing HIV-positive, Rand spent six months in the infirmary at the California Correctional Institution while awaiting transfer to a facility better equipped to treat HIV-positive inmates. He alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment based on inadequate medical care, heating, clothing, hygiene supplies, and opportunities for exercise. He also raised First Amendment claims involving telephone and religious access and Fourteenth Amendment claims.

The district court denied Rand's two requests for appointed counsel. It granted summary judgment to the former Director of the California Department of Corrections because Rand sued him only in a supervisory capacity, and later entered judgment for the remaining defendants after adopting a magistrate judge's recommendations. Defendants had included a two-page discussion of summary-judgment rules in their motion papers, but the district court itself gave no separate Rule 56 warning.

A Ninth Circuit panel vacated the summary judgments under Klingele v. Eikenberry because Arreola v. Mangaong required the district court, rather than the moving party, to provide a pro se prisoner with Rule 56 notice. The Ninth Circuit reheard the case en banc to reconsider the continued validity of the Klingele rule, the permissible source and required content of notice, and whether the notice supplied to Rand was adequate.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Ninth Circuit should retain the Klingele requirement that pro se prisoners receive fair notice of Rule 56's requirements before summary judgment is entered against them.

Holding

Yes. The court reaffirmed Klingele's core rule that a pro se prisoner must receive fair notice of the requirements and consequences of summary judgment.

Reasoning

Summary judgment is a distinctive and potentially case-ending procedure. Unlike dismissal at the pleading stage, summary judgment is a final adjudication on the merits, and an unrepresented prisoner may not intuitively understand that failing to submit evidence in response can end the case without a trial.

The rule rests on both the general obligation to provide meaningful court access to self-represented litigants and the particular disabilities of incarceration. Prisoners have restricted access to counsel, evidence, witnesses, legal materials, and the means to monitor litigation deadlines. Those conditions make it unrealistic to assume that they understand the evidentiary demands of Rule 56 merely because they have filed a civil action.

The court concluded that the fair-notice rule is consistent with Rule 56's purpose of allowing a meaningful opportunity to respond and with the Federal Rules' broader aim of avoiding procedural traps for unsophisticated litigants. It is also a permissible exercise of the court of appeals' supervisory authority over district courts in the circuit.

Stare decisis supported retention. The fair-notice doctrine had operated for decades, was accepted in most circuits that had considered it, was workable in practice, and both parties urged the court to preserve it. The court therefore retained the rule while limiting it to the combined circumstances of prisoner status and pro se representation.

Issue #2

Whether only the district court may provide the required Rule 56 notice to a pro se prisoner.

Holding

No. Either the district court or the summary-judgment movant may provide adequate notice; the court overruled Arreola v. Mangaong to the extent it required notice from the court itself.

Reasoning

Klingele's central purpose is to ensure that the prisoner actually understands the requirements and consequences of Rule 56. That purpose turns on the completeness and clarity of the notice, not exclusively on who sends it.

Although a prisoner may be inclined to distrust information from an opposing party, that concern does not justify a rule that elevates source over substance. A defendant can adequately convey the required information if the notice is presented in a form that makes clear it is supplied pursuant to a court requirement.

When the movant supplies the notice, it must be served as a separate document with the summary-judgment papers. It may not simply be embedded within the motion or supporting memorandum, and it must state that the court requires it. The district court nonetheless retains ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the prisoner receives fair notice.

Issue #3

What information must a Klingele notice contain, and was the notice supplied to Rand adequate?

Holding

The notice must be a clear, plain-language explanation of the prisoner's evidentiary obligations and the case-ending consequences of summary judgment. Defendants' notice to Rand was inadequate.

Reasoning

The notice must be written in ordinary, understandable language directed to an unsophisticated prisoner. It must tell the prisoner that he may submit counter-affidavits, declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, authenticated documents, or other admissible evidentiary material to oppose the motion.

It must also explain that allegations in the complaint alone will not defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment. If the prisoner does not offer evidence contradicting the movant's evidence and showing a genuine factual dispute, the court may accept the movant's evidence and enter judgment without a trial.

Most importantly, the notice must conspicuously state that a granted summary-judgment motion ends the case: there will be no trial. Any applicable local-rule obligation, such as filing a statement of genuine issues, must also be stated briefly and plainly.

Defendants' notice correctly informed Rand that he could submit responsive evidentiary materials and could not rely solely on his complaint. But it was laden with legal citations and case quotations rather than plain language, and it never told Rand that losing summary judgment would end his case and eliminate any trial. Those defects made the notice insufficient.

Issue #4

Whether a failure to provide adequate Klingele notice is subject to harmless-error review.

Holding

Usually no; prejudice is generally presumed, although the failure may be harmless in the unusual case where the record objectively establishes that the prisoner already had a complete understanding of Rule 56's requirements.

Reasoning

The court declined to require case-by-case inquiries into each prisoner's legal sophistication. Such an inquiry would be speculative and impractical because the absence of proper notice may cause a prisoner to withhold available evidence, leaving the appellate record unable to reveal the full harm caused by the omission.

Adequate Klingele notice protects a substantial right. Thus, in most cases, the failure to give it affects substantial rights and requires reversal without ordinary harmless-error analysis, much as inadequate notice when a motion to dismiss is converted into one for summary judgment ordinarily requires reversal.

The court recognized narrow exceptions. Harmlessness may be objectively established if court records show that the prisoner recently received a proper Klingele warning in another case, or if the prisoner's response itself unmistakably demonstrates complete familiarity with the required notice and Rule 56 obligations. The court rejected subjective scrutiny of a prisoner's filings as a substitute for the required warning.

Nothing in the record established that Rand had learned from another source the information defendants omitted, especially that summary judgment would conclusively end his case. The court therefore reversed the summary judgments and remanded for further proceedings.

Concurrences

Judge Reinhardt

Reasoning

Judge Reinhardt fully joined the majority but emphasized that the Supreme Court's stare decisis framework from Planned Parenthood v. Casey should not generally control an en banc circuit court's decision whether to overrule circuit precedent. That framework was useful here because Klingele was a longstanding, successful doctrine accepted by the parties and by most courts that had considered it.

He explained that an en banc court ordinarily has a different institutional role from the Supreme Court and may consider factors particularly relevant to circuit law, including how other circuits have evaluated and criticized Ninth Circuit precedent. The court's overruling of Arreola illustrated the point: changing Arreola's source-of-notice rule was appropriate even though the more demanding Casey considerations would not necessarily support overruling it.

Judge Thomas

Reasoning

Judge Thomas agreed with the judgment and the majority's treatment of Arreola and harmless error, but stated that he would not adopt the Klingele rule if writing on a clean slate. In his view, the reasons given for special procedural protection of pro se prisoners often apply equally to indigent pro se litigants outside prison, and some prisoners may actually have better access to law libraries and legal assistance than other unrepresented persons.

He nevertheless concluded that the case did not properly present a full reconsideration of Klingele. Stare decisis counseled caution because Klingele had governed the circuit for a decade and neither litigant sought its abolition; both parties affirmatively asked the court to retain it.

Dissents

Judge Kleinfeld

Reasoning

Judge Kleinfeld would have overruled Klingele. He argued that the Ninth Circuit lacked authority to impose a general procedural rule on district courts because Congress assigned rulemaking for district-court procedure to the Supreme Court and the district courts under the Rules Enabling Act and related statutes. In his view, the court's supervisory authority could not override that allocation of authority.

He also found no principled basis for favoring pro se prisoners over other unrepresented litigants. Nonprisoner pro se litigants may be equally unable to afford counsel and may have less access to legal materials than prisoners. A boilerplate warning, he reasoned, cannot meaningfully teach an unsophisticated litigant the complex evidentiary and procedural requirements involved in summary judgment.

Judge Kleinfeld further argued that Klingele burdens defendants and courts, especially in prisoner litigation that is often meritless, and can prolong cases that otherwise warrant summary judgment. He believed individualized management by experienced district judges would promote fairness more effectively than a categorical notice-and-reversal rule.

He disagreed with the majority's limited harmless-error approach. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 61 and 28 U.S.C. § 2111 require courts to disregard errors that do not affect substantial rights, he maintained, without limiting harmlessness to unusual or objectively provable cases. Appellate courts should examine the full record and determine whether the error actually affected the outcome.

Applying that standard, Judge Kleinfeld considered the error harmless in Rand's case. Rand had requested more time to respond, said he knew he had to oppose the motion, and submitted extensive responsive materials. In the dissent's view, those circumstances showed that Rand understood the need to respond to summary judgment, and he had not shown that the flawed notice affected the result.