Case law

Rodriguez

District Court, E.D. California · May 22, 2026

If only a 27 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 28 1 must clearly identify the protected … If only a portion or 11 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 12 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 13

(PC) Miles v. Hollister

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 14, 2020

Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554-55 (1967) (applying judicial 18 immunity to a § 1983 action). … In this regard, “the proponent of the stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” 4 Clinton v.

Davis v. Nevada County, CA

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 11, 2023

If only a portion or 2 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify 3 the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 4 … If only a portion or portions 12 of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 13 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 14

(PC) Davis v. Hutcheson

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 27, 2023

immunity. … For the reasons discussed below, the 18 Court finds Defendants’ first two arguments persuasive, and thus the Court does not address 19 qualified immunity. 20 A.

Hillman, III v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 10, 2021

If only a portion or portions of the material 27 on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 28 … This provision 14 is not intended to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that 15 provides for production without prior privilege review.

(PS) Bledsoe v. Granberry

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 24, 2020

However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma 28 pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. … time if the allegation of 12 poverty is found to be untrue or if it is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to 13 state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune

(PC) Morgan v. Sacramento Co. Dept. of Health Service

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 30, 2020

complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 26 “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 27 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 4 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v.

Trulsson v. County of San Joaquin District Attorney's Office

49 F. Supp. 3d 685 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 23, 2014

The parties agree and the court notes that to establish a claim for failure to prevent retaliation, a plaintiff must first establish the underlying retaliation. {See ECF No. 157-1 at 9 & ECF No. 174 at 12-13.) … Plaintiff counters there was no need to provide the “adverse employment action” jury instruction because defendant stipulated that the two challenged acts, the layoff and failure to promote, qualified as adverse employment

Vela v. Boccane

District Court, E.D. California · May 14, 2021

As a 27 basic matter, the complaint does not clearly state what happened. … “Few 6 doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from 7 liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction.” Pierson v.

(PC) Samaniego v. CDCR

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

In 15 addition, Defendants contend “Sullivan and Pfeiffer are entitled to qualified immunity for any claims 16 asserted against them.” (Id.) … entitled to qualified immunity.” 7 (Doc. 33 at 7.)

Payne v. Merced County Public Defender's Office

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 22, 2023

In 2 2007, the Merced County Superior Court detained Plaintiff on a petition alleging he qualified as a 3 SVP. … May 4, 2022) 5 (“[I]t is well-established that public entities are immune from punitive damages under § 1983 and 6 California law.”).

Booza

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 30, 2025

The 27 requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct personal 28 participation in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which the 1 actor knows or … The asserted immunity does not apply here. 15 Defendant correctly notes that the Ninth Circuit has made clear that “[a] witness has absolute 16 immunity from liability for civil damages under § 1983 for giving perjured

Cervantes v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

388 F. Supp. 2d 1164 · District Court, E.D. California · Jul 18, 2005

The Certification also established that Plaintiff could reach above shoulder level and operate a motor vehicle. Dr. … Since MetLife failed to exercise its right to delimit who may qualify as a duly authorized representative under the Plan, the Court finds that Plaintiff was free to select Dr.

(PC) Davis v. Bobbla

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 1, 2023

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. … By establishing the existence of a serious medical need, a prisoner satisfies the 18 objective requirement for proving an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer v.

(PS) Edison v. Huneke

District Court, E.D. California · May 2, 2022

However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma 4 pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. … time if the allegation of 16 poverty is found to be untrue or if it is determined that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to 17 state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune

Osei v. Countrywide Home Loans

692 F. Supp. 2d 1240 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 3, 2010

This duty was allegedly breached when the defendants directed plaintiff into a loan that plaintiff was not qualified to receive based on his income and would not have qualified for by industry standards, thereby resulting … These claims clearly meet the 4 year statute of limitations requirement.

Escamilla v. State of California

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

Except as otherwise provided 8 in this Order, material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly 9 so designated before the material is disclosed or produced. … If only a 15 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 16 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., 17 by making appropriate

(PS)Lewis v. Wellspace Health

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 18, 2020

SCREENING 22 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 23 complete the inquiry required by the statute. … IFP statute requires federal courts to 24 dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which 25 relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

Calamco v. J.R. Simplot Co.

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 5, 2024

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, 10 the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 11 markings in the margins). … If 21 only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 22 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 23

Smith v. Newsome

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 21, 2025

While short, Plaintiff’s 2 complaint does not clearly state what happened. … Immunity 21 Several defendants are immune from suit.