Andres M. Martinez v. G.D. Stanford W. Owen M. Atkinson D. Rockholt J. Stovall

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a district court may not 26 grant a motion for summary judgment by default because a party failed to respond to the 27 motion for summary judgment
• holding that the 8 district court erred by granting summary judgment where there were genuine issues of 9 material fact regarding the reasonableness inquiry of the second Saucier prong
• holding that even where 7 a summary judgment motion is unopposed, the moving party is not entitled to summary judgment 8 unless its motion shows that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
• holding that a prisoner, who suffered lacerations on his left leg and finger, an abrasion on his head, bruises, and red welts on his back, stated a claim under the Eighth Amendment because the prisoner provided evidence in support of the other Whitley factors
• indicating that Ghazali provides the applicable rule for evaluating a Rule 12 motion to dismiss in light of a local rule authorizing dismissal
• holding that even where party fails to comply with local rules for responding to motion for summary judgment the moving party is not excused from its “affirmative duty under [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 56 to demonstrate its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).