Case law

(PS) Wise v. Butte County Superior Court

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 15, 2021

However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma 4 pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. … “Judicial immunity is not limited to judges.

(PS) Rogers v. Newsome

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 18, 2022

However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma 4 pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. … Under this standard, a court must dismiss a 21 complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the 22 factual contentions are clearly baseless.

Capitol Audio Access, Inc. v. Umemoto

980 F. Supp. 2d 1154 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 27, 2013

Communications Privacy Act / Stored Communications Act Defendant argues that “it is not covered by the [Stored Communications Act (‘SCA’) ] and [Plaintiff] cannot state a claim under it,” since Plaintiff fails to allege that it qualifies … “[T]he [C]CDAFA does not include a monetary threshold for damages, and some courts have concluded that ‘any amount of loss or damage may be sufficient,’ to establish statutory standing.”

(PC) Lipsey v. Mahakian

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 15, 2021

immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens.” 17 Edelman v. … Dept. of 18 State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989)] establishes that the State and arms of the State, which have 19 traditionally enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity, are not subject to suit under § 1983 in 20 either federal

(PS) Wayne v. Sierra County

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 20, 2025

Defendants assert failure to comply with 4 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to plead compliance with pre-suit 5 administrative or state-law processes, immunities including qualified immunity, lack … For a state offense to qualify as a predicate act in a RICO 11 suit it must be “capable of being generically classified as extortionate ...

Orion Wine Imports, LLC v. Appelsmith

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 16, 2019

“Where, 10 as here, a case is at the pleading stage, the plaintiff must ‘clearly . . . allege facts demonstrating’ 11 each element.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Warth v. … “The burden remains on the party 2 challenging the statute to establish that the burden on interstate commerce is clearly excessive in 3 relation to the putative local benefits.” Black Star Farms, LLC v.

(PS) Baldiosera Torres v. The People of the State of California

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 17, 2024

“Like other forms of official 14 immunity, judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of 15 damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). … Neither the Federal Criminal 3 Code nor the California Penal Code establish any private right of action or can support a civil 4 lawsuit. See Aldabe v.

(PC) Johnson v. Woodland Public Defenders Office

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 5, 2023

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 7 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 8 490 U.S. at 327. … Woodland Public Defenders Office is Immune in Representing Plaintiff 9 A defendant has “the right to be represented by an otherwise qualified attorney whom that 10 defendant can afford to hire, or who is willing

(PS) Johnson v. U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 8, 2021

As a sovereign, the United States is 24 immune from suit unless it has waived that immunity. United States v. … the 11 confidential informant driving the car could qualify as a government employee acting within the 12 scope of his employment.

Salazar v. Honest Tea, Inc.

74 F. Supp. 3d 1304 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 10, 2014

It is unclear how one could verify whether the level of honey in defendant’s product qualifies as a “kiss” and is “not enough to gross you out.” … “Honest Tea” by itself, without any qualifiers, also has a concrete message to it.

Brown v. BAKER HUGHES INC.

433 F. Supp. 2d 1094 · District Court, E.D. California · May 17, 2006

In sum, Plaintiff has not established that the standard of review should be heightened on conflict of interest grounds. … Brown may not qualify as a Beneficiary under the policy as the issue could be contested by the children of Mr. Hunt.

(PS) Atkinson v. Windsor El Camino Care Center

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 21, 2020

SCREENING 23 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 24 complete the inquiry required by the statute. … The allegations of the complaint thus establish that plaintiff and defendant Windsor 15 are citizens of the same state.

(PS) Goncalves v. Austin III

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

Legal Standard 3 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 4 complete the inquiry required by the statute. … However, the remainder of his complaint does not clearly define a cause of 24 action or clearly relate to a FOIA request. Instead, it contains apparently unrelated, unclear 25 phrases.

(PC) Giles v. Sacramento County D. A.'s Office

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 18, 2023

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. … Determining whether a prosecutor’s actions are 18 immunized requires a functional analysis.

Halliday v. Spjute

District Court, E.D. California · May 29, 2020

immunity for her 11 actions in monitoring Plaintiff Shelly Ioane. … Qualified immunity was denied. Doc. 384. 12 In response, Defendant Noll filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Doc. 394.

Vela v. Tulare County District Attorney

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 4, 2025

Plaintiff 12 does not clearly state what happened, when it happened, or who was involved. … Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430–31 (1976); Botello v. 13 Gammick, 413 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir.2005) (it is “well established that a prosecutor has absolute 14 immunity for the decision to prosecute a particular case”); Demery

Balbiani v. Chester Public Utility District, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 23, 2022

There, the Tenth 23 Circuit considered whether a constitutional right to privacy was clearly established for purposes 24 of qualified immunity. See id. … Further, the Eastwood case discusses constitutional 6 privacy rights in the context of whether such a right is clearly established for purposes of 7 determining qualified immunity not, as here, in the context of a discovery

Estate of Levingston v. County of Kern

320 F.R.D. 520 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 22, 2017

protocols or policies to safely take into custody, those persons showing signs of severe narcotics intoxication and/or mental health disorders; the failure to act upon clearly life-threatening symptoms and reports; the failure … Further, Defendants assert the information sought could be obtained through less intrusive means, “including through written discovery or the depositions of the KCSO’s Persons Most Qualified.” (Id.)

City of Fresno v. United States

709 F. Supp. 2d 934 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 30, 2010

To show an “imminent and substantial” threat, the plaintiff must do more than establish the presence of solid or hazardous wastes at a site. Foster v. United States, 922 F.Supp. 642, 661 (D.D.C.1996). … Under Rule 702 if the basis for an expert’s opinion is clearly unreliable, the district court may disregard that opinion in deciding whether a party has created a genuine issue of material fact. See Daubert v.

Luis Arturo Amaya Merino v. Partnership Health Plan of California, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 13, 2026

“In order to 16 establish municipal liability [under Monell], a plaintiff must show that a ‘policy or custom’ 17 led to the plaintiff’s injury.” Castro v. … Title II of the ADA prohibits a public entity from discriminating against a qualified 16 individual with a disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq.