A federal prisoner in Oregon brought a civil rights action, claiming that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by exposing him to ETS when they housed him with smoking cellmates. The district court granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion; however, the court did not advise the pro se plaintiff that he needed to submit responsive evidence to survive the summary judgment motion.  Therefore, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the summary judgment and remand with instructions to the district court to advise Hurley of the requirements of Rule 56.

1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 11601.