Haywood Champion v. Christopher Artuz, Superintendent Sgt. v. Guarracino

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that even pro se litigants “should be on subsequent arrest on November 22, 2009. (Dkt. No. 157). notice from the very publication of Rule 56(e
• finding that if a pro se plaintiff does not respond to a summary judgment motion “with an affidavit or other evidence as provided by Rule 56(e), the factual assertions in the [movant’s] affidavits [will] be accepted as true”
• disagreeing with pro se plaintiff’s argument that “the court was required to take all allegations in the complaint as true and to draw inferences therefrom in his favor”
• affirming unopposed summary judgment grant where pro se plaintiff had similar notice
• summary judgment for defendants was proper because “accepting the assertions in the [moving] affidavits and Rule 3(g) statement as true,” plaintiff failed to prove essential element of claim
• “a plaintiff opposing summary judgment may not rely on his complaint to defeat the motion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).