(PC) Johnson v. Kern County Jail
1:22-cv-01046
E.D. Cal.Jun 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Roberto Johnson, a former county jail inmate and current state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Eighth Amendment violations (failure to protect) against Defendant Frye.
- The case is proceeding in the Eastern District of California.
- Defendant Frye filed a motion for summary judgment on June 26, 2025, arguing that there are no genuine disputes of material fact and that Frye is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- There was confusion about whether Plaintiff had received the required Rand notice outlining his rights and obligations regarding summary judgment motions, prompting the Court to issue this informational order.
- The Court extended the deadline for Johnson to file an opposition (or a statement of non-opposition) to Frye's summary judgment motion, giving him 21 days from service of this order.
- The order explains how Johnson must respond to the summary judgment motion, including requirements under the Federal Rules and Local Rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary judgment on Eighth Amendment claim | Johnson claims Frye failed to protect him in violation of his rights | Frye argues no genuine dispute of material fact; entitled to judgment as a matter of law | No decision yet; Court extends Johnson's time to oppose, outlines requirements |
| Adequacy of summary judgment notice | Unclear if Johnson received proper notice | Frye contends Rand notice was served separately | Court provides required Rand notice in this order |
| Procedural requirements for opposition | N/A (informational for plaintiff) | Plaintiff must comply with rules to oppose summary judgment | Court reiterates compliance is mandatory, outlines consequences for non-compliance |
| Extension of deadline | Johnson may need more time due to notice confusion | Frye filed motion timely | Court grants Johnson 21 more days to respond |
Key Cases Cited
- Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that pro se prisoner litigants must be provided notice of the requirements for opposing summary judgment motions)
- Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012) (clarifying requirements for district courts to provide Rand notice to pro se prisoners)
- Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988) (requiring courts to inform pro se prisoners about summary judgment procedures and potential consequences)