Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.19s
(PC)Vargas v. Internal Revenue Service
District Court, E.D. California · Apr 15, 2022
The court must dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably 13 meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 14 327. … Constitutional Claims 18 As an agency of the United States, the IRS is immune from suit in the absence of 19 Congressional authorization. City of Whittier v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 17, 2026
It is somehow lost, which Plaintiff claims is clearly another act 2 of deliberate indifference towards his medical needs and established A.D.A. status and previous 3 diagnosis as permanently disabled right knee. … Dep’t. of Corrs., 554 7 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding California Department of Corrections and California Board 8 of Prison Terms entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity). 9 As CDCR is immune
Cited 0 timesUnknownBurchett v. State of CA Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection
District Court, E.D. California · May 20, 2020
To that end, a qualified immunity from liability shall be provided for public entities and emergency 13 rescue personnel providing emergency services. 14 (b) Except … Health and Safety Code § 1799.107 (emphasis added). 2 GSTS contends that it is entitled to immunity under the foregoing language 3 because: (1) it qualifies as “emergency rescue personnel,” in that it
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 24, 2022
Qualified Immunity 10 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 11 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity under Section 1983 unless (1) the 13 officers violate a federal a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their 14 conduct was “clearly established
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 6, 2023
Qualified Immunity 6 Qualified immunity applies when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established 7 statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Officers are entitled to qualified immunity under Section 1983 unless (1) the 9 officers violate a federal a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their 10 conduct was “clearly established
Cited 0 timesUnknownCalifornia Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Interstate Non-Ferrous Corp.
298 F. Supp. 2d 930 · District Court, E.D. California · Jul 28, 2003
Barstow moves for summary judgment against DTSC on the issue of immunity under the Recycler Exemption, CERCLA’s Section 127, Doc. 960. Oral arguments were heard October 18, 2002. II. … Both experts are qualified to testify on the issue.
Cited 21 timesPublished(PC) Cooks v. State of CA Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation
District Court, E.D. California · Jun 10, 2022
As stated above, California Evidence 17 Code § 669 does not establish an independent cause of action. … Rather, plaintiff misapprehends defendant CDCR’s arguments, claiming 11 that the CDCR “asserts the doctrine of qualified immunity protect government officials from 12 liability.” (ECF No. 22 at 21:17-18.)
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2024
. § 1915(g), because Plaintiff has had at least three 4 actions or appeals that constitute strikes and the Complaint does not establish that Plaintiff meets 5 the imminent danger exception. … because 17 Plaintiff’s claims facially were barred by judicial and 18 prosecutorial immunity
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 27, 2026
To establish a violation of the Eighth 28 Amendment, the prisoner must “show that the officials acted with deliberate indifference . . .” 1 Labatad v. Corrs. … Dep’t. of Corr., 554 25 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding California Department of Corrections and California Board 26 of Prison Terms entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity). 27 As CDCR is immune
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Michoff v. El Dorado County
District Court, E.D. California · Feb 16, 2022
clearly established case law demonstrating that he had a realistic 11 opportunity to intercede and failed to do so. … ECF No. 40 at 4. 20 Plaintiff further disputes the defendants’ assertion that they are entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 6, 2022
SCREENING 22 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 23 complete the inquiry required by the statute. … That claim cannot proceed 18 because existing law establishes that California state courts do have jurisdiction to make 19 dependency decisions regarding Indian children even in light of ICWA.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2024
. § 1915(g) because Plaintiff has had at 24 least three actions or appeals that constitute strikes, and the Complaint does not establish that 25 Plaintiff meets the imminent danger exception. 26 … 13 Plaintiff’s claims were facially barred by judicial and 14 prosecutorial immunity
Cited 0 timesUnknownHoltzclaw v. Certainteed Corp.
795 F. Supp. 2d 996 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 8, 2011
Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); Morgan, 88 Cal.App.4th at 69, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 652 . “ ‘[T]he defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence,’ reasons for … Qualified Individual No party disputes whether Plaintiff was a qualified individual for purposes of establishing a prima facie case of disability discrimination. 3.
Cited 16 timesPublished(PS) Liang v. Stockton Police Dept.
District Court, E.D. California · Oct 25, 2021
“[I]t is well established that a prosecutor has absolute immunity for the decision to 1 prosecute,” as well as “for the decision not to prosecute.” Roe v. … And, “[i]t is well established that state judges are 3 entitled to absolute immunity for their judicial acts.” Swift v. California, 384 F.3d 1184, 1188 4 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Pierson v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 20, 2023
Qualified Immunity 13 Separately, Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified 14 immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does 15 not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable
Cited 0 timesUnknownMohibullah Ahmadzai v. County of Sacramento, et al.
District Court, E.D. California · Jan 5, 2026
To qualify to proceed in forma pauperis, the 2 litigant must submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets they possess. 3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). … Plaintiff's IFP 17 application lacks sufficient detail to establish that he is entitled to prosecute this case 18 without paying the required fees. See Williams, 443 F. App’x at 233.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 15, 2021
Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), the Supreme Court set forth a two-pronged test to 10 determine whether qualified immunity exists. … However, in an abundance of caution, for the reasons stated herein, the 24 undersigned finds that defendants should be granted qualified immunity based on the second 25 prong of the qualified immunity test.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Nov 9, 2022
Claims are frivolous where they are based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or 1 where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … Examples of immunity that would preclude relief during screening, include, but are not 6 limited to, quasi-judicial immunity, sovereign immunity, or qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 30, 2021
Issuance of orders is clearly a judicial function. Judge Hoover and Judge 22 Gibson are thus immune and Plaintiff’s claims for damages against them are barred. … But Plaintiff does not establish that Dr. Elliott is the actionable cause behind a (clearly pled) 21 constitutional injury.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 11, 2026
Courts start with the 1 presumption that private conduct does not constitute governmental action, and a plaintiff bears 2 the burden of establishing state action. See Florer v. … It now clearly appears 14 granting further leave to amend the other claims would be futile. See Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n 15 v. Klamath Med. Serv.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna