Case law

Doe

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 10, 2026

if any document or ESI (including, without limitation, metadata) received by a 17 party is on its face clearly subject to a legally recognizable privilege, immunity, 18 or other right not to produce … The Producing 21 Party will retain the burden of establishing the propriety of the redactions. 22 10.4.

C.B.

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 30, 2026

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the 5 factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or 6 fanciful, and construes those allegations in the light … In order to establish a substantive due process claim, Plaintiff must show a 22 government deprivation of life, liberty or property. Capp v.

Vladimir Korostelev v. California Department of Motor Vehicles.

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 12, 2025

Plaintiff’s Allegations 9 On March 19, 2025, plaintiff applied for a REAL-ID compliant driver’s license and 10 provided a valid Employment Authorization which clearly lists his … Among other things, the REAL ID Act of 2005 codified at Title 49 United States Code 18 Section 30301, et seq., establishes standards for the National Driver Register, provides for reports 19 to be made to the Secretary

James v. United States

215 F.R.D. 590 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 30, 2002

Despite the pronouncements of the Ninth Circuit to the contrary, judges are ill equipped to determine as a matter of law whether an attorney’s conduct qualifies as “gross” as opposed to “ordinary” negligence. … In addition, as in Community Dental, a malpractice action is clearly an inadequate remedy in this case because Olives is nowhere to be found and apparently has no malpractice insurance or assets to his name.

Schwarm v. Craighead

552 F. Supp. 2d 1056 · District Court, E.D. California · May 5, 2008

Craighead is not entitled to sovereign immunity based its contracts with the district attorneys’ offices. See del Campo v. … Kennedy, 517 F.3d 1070, 1080-81 (9th Cir.2008) (a private company contracting with a district attorney’s office pursuant to the BCDA is not entitled to sovereign immunity). 3 .

(PC) Collins v. Marfil

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 12, 2024

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 12 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 13 490 U.S. at 327. … “To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that 26 (1) [he] is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) [he] was excluded from participation in or 27 otherwise discriminated against with

(HC) Williams v. Robertson

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 29, 2024

The focus of the latter inquiry is on whether the 12 state court’s application of clearly established federal law is objectively unreasonable, and we stressed in Williams [v. … 8 established Supreme Court authority.

(PS) Yoonessi v. James

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 14, 2025

Defendant SUNY Buffalo argues it 10 has sovereign immunity. 11 Defendants contend that Plaintiff has the burden of pleading facts sufficient to establish a 12 basis … or absolute immunity; and 4) 11 failure to state a claim.

(PC) Cortinas v. Allison

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 7, 2020

It also fails to clearly 21 articulate the facts giving rise to any claim. … Cty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1214-15 (9th Cir. 2008). 15 “To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) [he] is a 16 qualified individual with a disability; (2) [he] was excluded

Rivera

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 20, 2026

Legal Standard 23 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 24 complete the inquiry required by the statute. … IFP statute requires federal courts to 25 dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which 26 relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

(PS) Liang v. Anderson

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 2, 2021

SCREENING 24 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 25 complete the inquiry required by the statute. … Accordingly, Title 18 of the United States Code does 20 not establish any private right of action and cannot support a civil lawsuit. See Aldabe v.

Johnson v. City of Chico

725 F. Supp. 1097 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 17, 1989

It is now established that where state law provides multiple statutes of limitation for personal injury actions, courts considering § 1983 claims must borrow the general or residual statute for personal injury actions. … It appears to this court that my decision in this case qualifies for interlocutory consideration.

(PC) Hounihan v. Shirk

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 1, 2024

“Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity 15 of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction.” 16 Pierson v. … Judicial immunity “is an immunity from suit, not 17 just from the ultimate assessment of damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); see also 18 Stump v.

Schwartz v. Lassen County ex rel. Lassen County Jail

838 F. Supp. 2d 1045 · District Court, E.D. California · Jan 19, 2012

In upholding the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, the court held that the evidence “raised factual questions whether defendants deliberately disregarded the … Fact Concerts Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271 , 101 S.Ct. 2748 , 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981) (“[A] municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .”)

McFadyen v. County of Tehama

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 4, 2020

Qualified Immunity 19 Qualified immunity protects government officers from “liability for civil damages insofar 20 as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Qualified immunity questions are to be resolved at the 23 “earliest possible stage in litigation” because qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather 24 than a mere defense to liability.”

Phommathep v. County of Tehama

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 4, 2020

Qualified Immunity 19 Qualified immunity protects government officers from “liability for civil damages insofar 20 as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Qualified immunity questions are to be resolved at the 23 “earliest possible stage in litigation” because qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather 24 than a mere defense to liability.”

A.H. v. County of Tehama

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 4, 2020

Qualified Immunity 19 Qualified immunity protects government officers from “liability for civil damages insofar 20 as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Qualified immunity questions are to be resolved at the 23 “earliest possible stage in litigation” because qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather 24 than a mere defense to liability.”

Woods v. County of Tehama

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 4, 2020

Qualified Immunity 19 Qualified immunity protects government officers from “liability for civil damages insofar 20 as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Qualified immunity questions are to be resolved at the 23 “earliest possible stage in litigation” because qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather 24 than a mere defense to liability.”

Cummings v. Cenergy International Services, LLC

258 F. Supp. 3d 1097 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 15, 2017

First, a court may exercise federal-question jurisdiction where a federal right or immunity is “an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiffs cause of action,” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. … Insufficient Allegations to Establish Plaintiffs Are Third-Party Beneficiaries Plaintiffs also contend they are third-party beneficiaries of the MSAs, establishing standing to challenge .the enforceability of the MSAs.

Martinez v. City of West Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 2021

Immunities and other affirmative defenses may be upheld on a 22 motion to dismiss only when they are established on the face of the complaint. … The Court agrees. 18 It is well established that a prosecutor enjoys absolute immunity from suits for damages 19 when he acts within the scope of his prosecutorial duties