Case law

(PS) Crocker v. County of Amador

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

capacity and are therefore immune 7 from suit. … “Like other forms of official immunity, judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, 8 not just from ultimate assessment of damages.” Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991).

Servin v. San Joaquin County

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 7, 2022

If only a 21 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 … If only a portion or 4 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 5 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 6

Goodwin v. State Farm General Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 27, 2024

Sysco Food Servs. of Arizona, Inc., 374 F.3d 8 840, 847 (9th Cir. 2004) (to establish a prima facie case for Title VII discrimination, plaintiff 9 must show: (1) they are a member of a protected class; (2) they were qualified … Plaintiff fails to establish that 14 federal law governs this action.

Berdnik v. Main Stream Solutions, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 7, 2024

If only a portion or 26 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 27 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate marking in the margins). 28 … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 9 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 10 markings in the margins).

(PC) Walker v. Secretary of Corrections

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 13, 2023

“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on 8 indisputably meritless legal theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” 9 Jackson v. … Thus, the Unruh Act “firmly established the right of all persons to 25 nondiscriminatory treatment by establishments that engage in business transactions with the 26 public.” Anderson v. County of Siskiyou, No.

(PS) Powell v. United States

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

P. 12(h)(3). 8 The United States is immune from suit for damages except where Congress has 9 specifically waived its immunity. See Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 160 (1981). … In this way, too, plaintiff fails to establish the court’s jurisdiction, 9 and the suit must be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 10 III.

Zoom Imaging Solutions, Inc. v. Roe

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

If only a portion 9 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 10 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 11 … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 19 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 20 appropriate markings in the margins).

Ford v. Kern High School District

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 11, 2022

Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required of in forma pauperis proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. … To establish a prima facie case for Title VII discrimination, plaintiff 5 must show the following: (1) they are a member of a protected class; (2) they were qualified for 6 the position; (3) they suffered an adverse

Ayala v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services

216 F. Supp. 3d 1073 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 19, 2016

“Or, as we have more recently said: “ ‘Once it has been determined that a person does not qualify for citizenship, ... the district court has no discretion to ignore the defect and grant citizenship.”’ [Citation.].” … The court recognizes that authority on this issue is sparse, however in at least one case the Ninth Circuit has clearly held that the reasoning found in Koloamatangi cannot be applied outside the context of fraud.

(PC) Hendrix v. Arce

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 4, 2021

immunity for claims regarding “the right to be free from heightened exposure to Valley Fever spores.” … However, though the Court finds the factual allegations sufficient for screening purposes, it does not make any finding whether the doctrine of qualified immunity may be extended to the facts of this case. 4

Conanan

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 31, 2026

Conanan is not entitled to 20 qualified immunity. 21 In response, Defendant argues Plaintiff has failed to create a material dispute of fact as he 22 concedes she … immunity. 17

(PC) Mays v. Stanton Correctional Facility

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 21, 2023

complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 9 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 10 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Wilson, 17 124 F.3d 1019, 1022-23 (9th Cir. 1997). 18 “To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) [he] is a 19 qualified individual with a disability

Bernhard v. County of San Joaquin

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 6, 2024

immunity. … immunity.

(PC) Samaniego v. CDCR

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 17, 2022

“supervisory liability for the § 1983 19 claims;” (3) “Sullivan and Pfeiffer are entitled to qualified immunity;” and (4) “the claims against 20 ‘Doe’ defendants are improper in federal court.” … to qualified immunity.”

Rodriguez v. Saputo Cheese USA, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 19, 2024

If only a portion 9 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 10 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 11 … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies 19 for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by 20 making appropriate markings in the margins).

(PS) Nasiri v. Pfizer, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 9, 2024

Section 1983 exists to 19 redress violations of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and federal laws 20 by a person or entity acting under the color of state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. … The complaint’s allegations and legal theories are clearly pleaded and 2 || establish that the deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment.

Bernal v. Sacramento County Sheriff Department

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 14, 2023

12 immunity. … Counsel also continued to 21 make meritless and/or irrelevant arguments as to Ryan’s individual profile, Plaintiffs’ 22 consent or lack thereof, and whether he believes qualified immunity should be available 23 as a

Giuliano Gaglione v. Expert Property Management

District Court, E.D. California · May 8, 2026

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 … Plaintiff can 20 establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or may allege jurisdiction based on 21 diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Taheny v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

878 F. Supp. 2d 1093 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 3, 2012

Wells Fargo next asserts that 1994 legislation establishes where banks are “located,” thus superseding American Surety. … The court's statement about the “main office” does not appear to qualify as an alternative holding.

(PC)Myers v. California Correctional Healthcare Services

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 8, 2020

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. … Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) 5 (Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to state agencies); see also Hafer v.