A prisoner was allegedly forced to shower in a dirty shower area without proper footwear, and three days later became very sick with flu-like symptoms and a swollen leg. While a correctional officer saw this and allegedly said, "that looks really bad," the prisoner was not taken to the medical department until three days later. A federal appeals court ruled that the trial court improperly granted the defendant officer's untimely oral motion for summary judgment, after jury selection, and on the eve of trial, in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), and denied the plaintiff inmate an adequate opportunity to respond to the motion. Drippe v. Tobelinski, #08-4616, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 9990 (3rd Cir.).
    Federal trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant prison officials' motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity as untimely in prisoner's lawsuit claiming that they were deliberately indifferent to threats of physical violence against prisoners. This motion, filed within three weeks of the court's motion ruling on a motion to dismiss, and one week before trial, was not clearly untimely because no local rule or court order clearly provided the officials with a specific deadline for filing the motion, and the officials therefore did not have adequate notice that their motion would be untimely if filed when it was. Further proceedings ordered on defendant officials' motion. Moore v. Cockrell, No. 04-40474, 144 Fed. Appx. 397 (5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Trial court should not have entered a summary judgment in favor of officers on prisoner's racial discrimination civil rights lawsuit simply because the prisoner, who was acting as his own lawyer, failed to file any papers in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Trial court still should have examined the officers' submissions to determine if they met their burden of showing that there were no material issues of fact remaining for trial, because if they had not, summary judgment was inappropriate. Amaker v. Foley, #01-0018, 274 F.3d 677 (2nd Cir. 2001). [N/R]
     253:11 Prisoner acting as his own attorney must be given detailed judicial notice and explanation of summary judgment motion process, federal appeals court panel rules, even when the defendants making the motion do provide the information and the prisoner has actual understanding of the process; entry of summary judgment without such notice was improper; full appeals court grants rehearing. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, rehearing en banc granted, 122 F.3d 39 (9th Cir. 1997).