From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Adams v. Brooks

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 4, 2010
369 F. App'x 824 (9th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 09-55268.

Submitted February 16, 2010.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed March 4, 2010.

Quincy Winston Adams, Delano, CA, pro se.

Terry A. Barak, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Alicemarie H. Stotler, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02215-AHS-SS.

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Quincy Winston Adams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his dental needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Sorrels v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir. 2002), and we vacate and remand.

The record does not indicate that the district court provided Adams with any notice under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). Further, the error was not harmless because it does not appear that Adams had recently received a Rand notice in any other litigation, and the record does not disclose that he had a complete understanding of the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. See id. at 961-62.

Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.


Summaries of

Adams v. Brooks

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 4, 2010
369 F. App'x 824 (9th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Adams v. Brooks

Case Details

Full title:Quincy Winston ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sheldon BROOKS, DDS; et al.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 4, 2010

Citations

369 F. App'x 824 (9th Cir. 2010)