Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.45s
District Court, E.D. California · Sep 6, 2023
Claims are frivolous where they are based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or 5 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 10 limited to, quasi-judicial immunity, sovereign immunity, or qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Chiu v. The President of US
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 19, 2025
SCREENING 22 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 23 complete the inquiry required by the statute. … There is no clearly identifiable 5 incident that forms the basis of the complaint. No causes of action are asserted. The sentences in 6 the complaint do not make sense.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 21, 2023
Feb. 7, 2023) (finding no clearly established federal law supporting prisoner’s theory that an indeterminate life sentence, 22 constitutional … July 28, 2022) 24 (finding there is no clearly established federal law supporting prisoner’s theory that for inmates serving indeterminate life sentences, continued confinement following parole denials may violate
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 29, 2023
15 Defendants Liang and Ramirez contend they are entitled to qualified immunity. … no clearly established right to retain 19 property that violates prison regulations.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC)Wilson v. Mule Creek State Prison
District Court, E.D. California · Sep 25, 2024
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. … Pursuant to the ADA, “no qualified 2 individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or 3 be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Giles v. Sacramento County D. A.'s Office
District Court, E.D. California · Sep 27, 2023
Determining whether a prosecutor’s actions are immunized requires a functional 5 analysis. … The prosecutor’s quasi-judicial functions, rather than administrative or investigative 8 functions, are absolutely immune.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Chiu v. The President of US
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 19, 2025
SCREENING 22 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 23 complete the inquiry required by the statute. … There is no clearly identifiable 5 incident that forms the basis of the complaint. No causes of action are asserted. The sentences in 6 the complaint do not make sense.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 26, 2021
To the extent plaintiff seeks injunctive relief as to that claim, the magistrate judge 26 concluded that defendants had not established they were entitled to qualified immunity on 27 summary judgment. … (Id. at 24, 33) (noting that “qualified immunity does not bar injunctive 28 relief”) (citing cases).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Nov 10, 2021
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.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 5, 2019
The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials ... from 24 liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 25 constitutional rights of which a reasonable … A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether 27 the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether the right was 28 clearly established, such that it would
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 5, 2023
Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-55 (1967) (applying judicial immunity 6 to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (noting 7 that judicial immunity is an immunity from suit). … In Heck, Supreme Court established that in cases where a § 1983 19 action alleges constitutional violations that would necessarily imply the invalidity of the 20 conviction or sentence, the plaintiff must establish that
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 17, 2024
If only a portion 8 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 9 … If only a portion or portions of the material 18 on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 19 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).
Cited 0 timesUnknown507 F. Supp. 1075 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 15, 1980
Qualified investment programs.” … In Hector , the court swept aside contention of the defendant bank, and stated that the investment of credit, since it subjected the plaintiff to risk of loss, clearly met the Howey test.
Cited 9 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 20, 2026
for protection, the Producing Party also must 2 clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 3 (b) for testimony given in depositions, the Designating Party shall … by federal or state law, including but not limited to the FERPA (20 U.S.C. § 1232g), 12 California Education Code Sections 49060 et seq., constitutional or statutory privacy rights, or any 13 applicable privilege or immunity
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 2, 2022
The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably 2 meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 3 327. … , include, but 10 are not limited to, quasi-judicial immunity, sovereign immunity, or qualified immunity. 11 Additionally, a plaintiff may not recover monetary damages absent a showing of physical injury. 12 See 42
Cited 0 timesUnknownJose Angel Santos v. California Department of Corrections, et al.
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 25, 2026
or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 27 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 28 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … App’x 553, 556-57 (6th Cir. 2002) (being 19 required to participate in a substance abuse program that interferes with an inmate’s ability to 20 earn money does not qualify as a “significant and atypical hardship”); Ross
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Nelson v. Shasta County Courts
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 15, 2022
In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 11 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 12 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations … The exact nature of what happened to plaintiff (or the injured party) is unclear 1 from the complaint, which contains minimal information that is not clearly tied to the defendants 2 in this case.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 30, 2020
“A showing of 28 medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under 1 the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 1060. … “[E]ven gross negligence is insufficient to establish a 2 constitutional violation.” Id. (citing Wood v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Robb v. California Air Resources Board
District Court, E.D. California · Oct 26, 2023
Under this standard, a court must dismiss a complaint as frivolous 9 where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are 10 clearly baseless. … abrogation of that immunity. 23 Pennhurst v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDeerpoint Grp., Inc. v. Agrigenix, LLC
345 F. Supp. 3d 1207 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 4, 2018
Further, at the time of Settlement, Deerpoint was clearly aware that Mahoney had "misappropriated" trade secrets for purposes of CUTSA. … Fourth, the Court cannot agree that a defendant like MBS (or Mahoney) would essentially obtain immunity for all future uses or disclosures of trade secrets.
Cited 36 timesPublished
Ask Donna