Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.40s
District Court, E.D. California · Oct 25, 2021
However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma 28 pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. … The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state, absent the 24 state’s affirmative waiver of its immunity or congressional abrogation of that immunity. 25 Pennhurst v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownHinojo v. United State of America
District Court, E.D. California · Apr 17, 2023
If a plaintiff cannot establish that its action against the 15 United States falls within a waiver of sovereign immunity, the action must be dismissed. See 16 Dunn & Black, P.S. v. … List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 6 (9th Cir. 1989) (finding that dismissal of a state agency was proper as the agency “clearly was 7 immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.”).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 6, 2023
Circuit court precedent “may be persuasive in determining what law is clearly 25 established and whether a state court applied that law unreasonably.” Stanley, 633 F.3d at 859 26 (quoting Maxwell v. … Further, where 4 courts of appeals have diverged in their treatment of an issue, there is no “clearly established 5 Federal law” governing that issue. Carey v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 7, 2023
Lastly, 7 defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not 8 violate clearly established federal law. … With respect to defendants’ qualified immunity argument, plaintiff 1 contends that “it has been ruled unconstitutional to [pepper] spray a mentally ill inmate because 2 they are responding to stimuli caused by their mental
Cited 0 timesUnknown637 F. Supp. 2d 807 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 26, 2009
The California Supreme Court’s silent denial of this claim cannot be said to be an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 5. … The Court cannot say that the decision of the Court of Appeal was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 8.
Cited 1 timesPublished(PS) Hall v. Equifax Information Services
District Court, E.D. California · Oct 27, 2021
SCREENING 22 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 23 complete the inquiry required by the statute. … In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 8 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 9 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Charles v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 19, 2020
IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 3 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 4 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court will 7 (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly 8 baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations
Cited 0 timesUnknown153 F. Supp. 3d 1217 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 23, 2015
Kirchner’s statements in her declaration establish personal knowledge sufficient to establish a foundation necessary to present the document in question. Fed. R. Evid. 602. … Marquez has established he has personal knowledge as a longstanding trustee of the Petition Fund to establish the foundation to present the documents in question. Fed. R. Evid. 602.
Cited 5 timesPublished637 F. Supp. 2d 837 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 17, 2009
Nothing in section 2254 requires that the remedy for a constitutional violation be “clearly established.” … As the law of the Ninth Circuit holds that Hill "clearly established” the some evidence requirement in the parole context for ' the purposes of AEDPA review, a fortiori, Gamer's as-applied analysis requirement must be clearly
Cited 4 timesPublished(PS) King v. Superior Court of CA, Placer County
District Court, E.D. California · Apr 19, 2024
However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma 4 pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. … Thus it is 6 protected from this lawsuit by Eleventh Amendment immunity.”). 7 While the complaint does not name Judge Jones as a defendant, plaintiff is advised that 8 “[i]t is well established that state
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Ashanti v. Department of Consumer Affairs
District Court, E.D. California · May 15, 2025
In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 16 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 17 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations … This 26 immunity “extends to state agencies and to state officers, who act on behalf of the state and can 27 therefore assert the state’s sovereign immunity.” Id.
Cited 0 timesUnknownGovernment App Solutions, Inc. v. City of New Haven
District Court, E.D. California · Aug 10, 2022
Lund notes the identical charges against FBI Special Agent Rebekah Bills were 19 dismissed based on qualified immunity, and that same immunity extends to his conduct. (Id. at 20 8.) … In opposition, Plaintiff asserts qualified immunity “has no applicability whatsoever to any 21 state tort claims” and the cases Lund cites in his motion all relate to qualified immunity for 22 federal tort claims.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 31, 2020
Id. at 9 1140. 10 To establish a violation of section 504 of the RA, a plaintiff must show “(1) she is 11 handicapped within the meaning of the [RA] … Plaintiff is advised that in an amended complaint he must 6 clearly identify each defendant and the action that defendant took that violated his constitutional 7 rights.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 18, 2022
Dist., 861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 1988). 25 Though states may waive their immunity, the language of section 1983 does not abrogate this 26 immunity. Quern v. … Nevertheless, in applying common tools of statutory construction 22 and looking to other jurisdictions, this Court concludes that Health Defendants do not qualify as 23 “independent establishments” under California law
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 1, 2021
However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma 1 pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. … In general, the Eleventh Amendment bars 9 suits against a state, absent the state’s affirmative waiver of its immunity or congressional 10 abrogation of that immunity. Pennhurst v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) McCaster v. Franchise Tax Board
District Court, E.D. California · Jun 4, 2025
This immunity “extends to state agencies and to 8 state officers, who act on behalf of the state and can therefore assert the state’s sovereign 9 immunity.” Id. … The amended pleading must be clearly labeled as the “Second 5 Amended Complaint” (hereafter “SAC”). The SAC must clearly identify the defendants. Rule 6 10(a).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 3, 2025
Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to 11 serious medical needs. See Wood v. … “In the simplest and most absolute of terms ... 20 prisoners [have a clearly established Eighth Amendment right] to be free from sexual abuse ....” 21 Schwenk, 204 F.3d at 1197.
Cited 0 timesUnknownCanupp v. Children's Receiving Home of Sacramento
181 F. Supp. 3d 767 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 20, 2016
“Consideration of the potential hardship to an employer in assessing the reasonableness of *777 an accommodation does not alter the fact that, ‘as part of [his] prima facie case, [plaintiff] must establish [ ]he was qualified … Nonetheless, plaintiff cannot establish a triable issue of fact with respect to whether she was qualified to do her job because, as previously discussed, it is undisputed that she could not perform the essential duties of
Cited 10 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 24, 2026
However, “[i]t has been 24 clearly established since 1991 that the deprivation of a human need—such as adequate 25 temperature—combined with a failure to mitigate that condition, can amount to an Eighth 26 Amendment … Sept. 13, 2012) (“It is clearly established that exposing an inmate to extreme cold for 3 several months without providing adequate blankets and clothing would violate the prohibition 4 against cruel and unusual punishment
Cited 0 timesUnknownRaj Singh v. Jeremy Johnson, et al.
District Court, E.D. California · Aug 14, 2026
It may be that Plaintiff qualifies to proceed IFP, 6 but that cannot be determined from the little information provided. Plaintiff’s motion will 7 therefore be denied. … Plaintiff must 13 clearly allege a jurisdictional basis for his claims. Plaintiff must set forth clearly delineated 14 claims or causes of action.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna