Case law

Canupp 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

Baday v. County of Kings

District 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

(HC) Wong v. Samuel

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 28, 2023

federal habeas relief under clearly established federal law. … ’s conclusion that the Supreme Court has 19 never held that a trial court has the obligation or authority to grant such immunity.

Ross v. Bolin

District Court, E.D. California · May 31, 2022

If a plaintiff 18 cannot establish that its action against the United States falls within a waiver of sovereign 19 immunity, the action must be dismissed. See Dunn & Black, P.S. v. … Specifically, the CARES Act established a tax 26 credit for eligible individuals in the amount of $1,200 ($2,400 if filing a joint return), plus $500 27 multiplied by the number of qualifying children. 26 U.S.C. § 6428

Obama

District Court, E.D. California · May 5, 2026

Legal Standard 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

(PS) Creel v. Sacramento County Sheriff Department

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 27, 2025

However, CHP itself is entitled to sovereign 6 immunity from § 1983 claims. See O’Leary v. … The FAC however fails to plead 3 sufficient facts supporting its conclusory assertions, names at least one defendant who has 4 sovereign immunity against suit, and does not plead facts sufficient to establish Monell liability

Nathaniel Lee Smith v. Tuolumne County Jail, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 2, 2026

Plaintiff qualifies this statement by adding “Judges and DA only declarational [sic] 24 ruling that they acted in violation of constitutional law.” 4 (Id.). … Governmental Immunity 3 “Governmental parties to a suit may claim not only immunity from liability, but immunity 4 from the suit itself.” Gibson v.

(PS) Holt v. Sacramento County Sheriff Dept.

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 25, 2025

In 2 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 3 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 4 construes those allegations in the … “In order 2 to establish municipal liability [under Monell], a plaintiff must show that a ‘policy or 3 custom’ led to the plaintiff’s injury.” Castro v.

(PS) Garcia S.G. v. Garcia

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 24, 2023

SCREENING 22 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 23 complete the inquiry required by the statute. … Accordingly, 21 the “penal code” does not establish any private right of action and cannot support a civil lawsuit. 22 See Aldabe v.

Scalia v. Cnty. of Kern

308 F. Supp. 3d 1064 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 10, 2018

First, the right at issue, the right to be free from deliberate indifference to one's serious medical needs, is "clearly delineated and plainly applicable" to the circumstances. Cornell , 17 Cal. … [A]ll omissions cited by the estate fall under the rubric of obtaining or providing medical care, for which actions the State is immune.") In opposition, Plaintiff cites Jett v.

(PC) Gosztyla v. Gruenwald

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 11, 2025

(Def.’s Mot. at 21.) 28 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil 1 damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Qualified immunity 4 shields an officer from liability even if his or her action resulted from “‘a mistake of law, a 5 mistake of fact, or a mistake based on mixed questions of law and fact.’” Id.

(PC)Perez

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 6, 2026

Lenoir said that Plaintiff “has nothing medically wrong with him 19 that would indicate he qualifies for any mobility DMEs [durable medical equipment].” (Id. at 20 11). … “To establish a 10 violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) [he] is a qualified individual 11 with a disability; (2) [he] was excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against

Anderson v. Butz

428 F. Supp. 245 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 29, 1975

Each plaintiff is the head of a household qualified for food stamp coupons under the Federal Food Stamp Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq. … It matters little what label is given the Secretary’s pronouncement for as was clearly state in Lewis-Mota v.

(PC) McPherson v. Newman

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 11, 2024

On December 21, 17 2023, defendant Judge Shubb adopted the November 2, 2023 findings and recommendations and 18 dismissed 2:23-cv-01014. 19 “It has long been established … And immunity is overcome only in two 24 circumstances: 25 First, a judge is not immune from liability for nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions

Ross v. Bolin

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 1, 2022

Specifically, the CARES Act 6 established a tax credit for eligible individuals in the amount of $1,200 ($2,400 if filing a joint 7 return), plus $500 multiplied by the number of qualifying children. 26 U.S.C. § 6428 … P. 8(a), but it must also clearly and concisely set forth the claims Plaintiff wishes to 18 pursue.

(PS)Crane v. Juhasz

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 30, 2021

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 13 Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity to the extent the SAC pleads 14 facts involving the individual defendants’ liability for the … denial of a building inspection. 15 Defendants argue qualified immunity is warranted because a reasonable city official would not 16 understand the decision not to inspect a building could be unlawful.

Henderson v. Hamilton

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 24, 2021

Prosecutorial Immunity 11 “[I]t is well established that a prosecutor has absolute immunity for the decision to prosecute 12 a particular case[.]” Botello v. … Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 432 (1976)). 21 Prosecutors, however, are entitled to “qualified immunity, rather than absolute immunity, 22 when they perform administrative functions, or ‘investigative functions normally

(PC) Wilkins v. Heslop

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 24, 2025

immunity. … Accordingly, defendants should be granted summary 20 judgment as to plaintiff’s equal protection claim and the court need not address defendants’ 21 qualified immunity arguments.

Shirley v. Yates

950 F. Supp. 2d 1141 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 5, 2013

“A state court decision is contrary to clearly established federal law if it failed to apply the correct controlling authority from the Supreme Court.” Benn v. … If that were true, however, some of the Supreme Court’s own examples of suggestiveness would not qualify.

J.M. v. United States of America

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 11, 2026

Trustee, 327 8 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The United States, as a sovereign, is immune from suit unless it 9 has waived its immunity.”). … The basis of a Bivens action is 21 some illegal or inappropriate conduct on the part of a federal official or agent that violates a clearly 22 established constitutional right. Baiser v.