Opinion
Submitted August 14, 1998
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 (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)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 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Owen E. Woodruff, Magistrate Judge, Presiding.
Before BRUNETTI, TASHIMA and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit, except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.
In this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff-appellant Peter Garcia, a pro se prisoner litigant, appeals from the judgment of the district court, granting summary judgment to defendants. We do not reach the merits of the case.
Recently, we reaffirmed the Klingele rule that pro se prisoner litigants must be given notice of the consequences of a Rule 56 summary judgment motion. Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 1998 WL 541380 (9th Cir. Aug.27, 1998) (en banc). Although the district court did issue a truncated Klingele-type notice, it was insufficient to meet the requirements of Rand. Compare id. at *12 (Appendix "A"), with district court order of service, § 4.b, at 11 (Dec. 5, 1995). Because this is not a case in which we may assess the harmlessness of this error on the record, see id. at *10-*11, we must vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition and with Rand.
Klingele v. Eikenberry,, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir.1988).
VACATED and REMANDED.