Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
0.76s
District 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 timesUnknownGoodwin v. State Farm Insurance
District Court, E.D. California · Jun 4, 2025
Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required of in forma pauperis 9 proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. … Even assuming Plaintiff’s allegation that he has ADHD and PTSD is sufficient to show he is an individual with a qualified disability under the 1 ADA, Plaintiff’s complaint does not clearly allege the remaining elements
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 · Jul 18, 2025
immunity. … immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 15, 2022
“Qualified Persons” shall be limited to the following: 14 a. … The producing Party shall bear the 21 burden of establishing grounds for the return of the Inadvertently Produced Privileged Material 22 that it seeks.
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 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 14, 2022
In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court 7 accepts as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless 8 they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and construes those allegations in 9 the … Regarding the 13 first element, the plaintiff must establish some racial or otherwise class- 14 based invidious discriminatory animus for the conspiracy.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 30, 2025
Judicial Immunity Bars this Case 22 Judicial immunity also deprives this court of subject matter jurisdiction. … The operative complaint is difficult to understand and does not clearly 8 connect facts to causes of action.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 14, 2025
immunity as to plaintiff’s 27 claim for interference with his March 20, 2014 grievance. … In any event, retaliation against prisoners for their exercise of their right to file prison grievances is prohibited as a matter of 28 “clearly established law.” Brodheim v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 19, 2026
Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified 8 immunity. … As to Defendants’ argument for qualified immunity, Plaintiff states that “Defendants 6 knew or should have known that the contaminated water was
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 20, 2022
Examples of immunity considered during the screening that would preclude relief, include 24 quasi-judicial immunity, sovereign immunity, or qualified … immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownLane v. Vitek Real Estate Industries Group
713 F. Supp. 2d 1092 · District Court, E.D. California · May 13, 2010
If plaintiffs were in bankruptcy they clearly would lack standing to bring this action absent abandonment of their claims by the bankruptcy trustee. … The purpose of a quiet title action is to establish one’s title against adverse claims to real property.
Cited 84 timesPublishedDistrict 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 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 22, 2025
The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 14 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 15 490 U.S. at 327. … Claims under section 52.1 may be brought against public officials who are alleged to interfere with protected rights, and qualified 28 immunity is not available for those claims.
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 timesUnknown312 F. Supp. 421 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 29, 1970
the regulation of commercial distribution of obscene material. ( 394 U.S. at 563-564 , 89 S.Ct. at 1247 ) But to say that the government has an “important interest” in the regulation of commercial distribution is not to immunize … It is now well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas.
Cited 13 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 12, 2023
The undersigned is not aware of any clearly established federal law 9 supporting a theory that for inmates serving indeterminate life sentences continued confinement 10 following parole denials may violate the Eighth … July 28, 2022) 25 (finding there is no clearly established federal law supporting prisoner’s theory that for inmates 26 serving indeterminate life sentences, continued confinement following parole denials may violate
Cited 0 timesUnknownGengler v. US EX REL. DEPT. OF DEFENSE AND NAVY
682 F. Supp. 2d 1117 · District Court, E.D. California · Jan 12, 2010
Because of the defendants' official immunity he received no damages award. No injunction or declaratory judgment was entered in his favor. … Respondents were unable to show by clearly established law that Petitioners were not entitled to enforce the written contract in accordance with its terms.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 27, 2023
violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time. … It is the Plaintiff’s burden to establish that the law 21 was “clearly established.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 11, 2022
immunity on the 7 grounds that the unconstitutionality of his alleged conduct was not clearly established. … immunity grounds.3 14 B.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna