Case law

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Timeless Investments, Inc.

734 F. Supp. 2d 1035 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 13, 2010

The Social Security Act “clearly permits individuals to receive benefits while engaged in a period of paid ‘trial work.’ ” Mohamed v. … There is therefore a genuine dispute concerning whether Carlberg was qualified for the position of cashier.

Presba v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

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

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the G No eo ud mm aa nn 26 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making Hamilton LLP … If only a 8 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party 9 also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings

John Weaver v. Solano County, et al.

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

or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 28 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 1 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) (“To 18 establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) [ ]he is a qualified 19 individual with a disability; (2) [ ]he was excluded from participation

(PC) Jones v. Wong

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

Defendant Heatley, Williams, Wong and Pace’s Arguments 22 Defendants argue that they were not deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s medical needs, 23 are entitled to qualified immunity, and that plaintiff’s claims … Id. at 13-14. 2 Finally, defendants argue that defendants, as public employees, have qualified immunity 3 and are protected from suit. 4 D.

(PS) Lull v. County of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 31, 2020

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) and the doctrine of equitable 13 estoppel; and Stewart is entitled to qualified immunity. ECF No. 10-1 at 10-15. … None of the briefs submitted to date adequately address 18 whether plaintiff’s conduct, as alleged in the second amended complaint, establishes a violation 19 of California Penal Code § 148(a)(1).

United States v. Mitchell

128 F. Supp. 3d 1266 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 1, 2015

The Ninth Circuit ruled that .Rule 16 “clearly cover[ed] the items [the] defendant ha[d] requested.” Id. … The record does not establish that the government’s inability to satisfy Ms.

Kouba v. Allstate Insurance

523 F. Supp. 148 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 18, 1981

As with all new sales agents, Allstate established a “monthly minimum” for plaintiff. … Finally, the Secretary of Labor has provided a definition of wages under which the monthly minimum would also be clearly encompassed.

(PC) Johnson v. Newsom

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 25, 2023

The district court noted that the law is clearly established that 11 prisoners have a constitutional right to be protected against a heightened exposure to serious, 12 easily communicable diseases such as COVID-19, which … Kuersten qualified his testimony as to the concentrated outbreaks by testifying “when we had 6 further outbreaks they were actually more concentrated in ‘A’ and ‘B’ facilities.”

(PC) Rios v. Spearman

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 28, 2022

Claims are frivolous where they are based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or 14 where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … Examples of immunity considered during screening that would preclude relief, include 19 quasi-judicial immunity, sovereign immunity, or qualified immunity.

Courtney v. Housing Authority of the County of Kings

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 19, 2021

Although Congress may expressly abrogate state sovereign immunity with respect 24 to a particular federal cause of action, see Quern v. … Aug. 20, 2008) 2 (concluding that “the FHA does not abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity”); cf.

Rivas v. Cook

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 19, 2020

Prosecutorial Immunity 26 Judges and prosecutors are immune from liability under § 1983 when they are 27 functioning in their official capacities under proper jurisdiction … This immunity extends 13 to actions during both the pre-trial and posttrial phases of a case. See Demery v.

(PC) Mathews v. County of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 16, 2024

The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless 9 legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. … However, to establish that a municipal entity is liable for an alleged 4 violation, a plaintiff must establish that the alleged violation was attributable to an official 5 municipal policy, a permanent and well-settled

(PC) Fields v. Director of CDCR

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

Qualified Immunity 2 Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. 3 A qualified immunity analysis requires determining: (1) whether facts alleged, taken … in the 4 light most favorable to the injured party, show the defendants’ conduct violated a constitutional 5 right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established.

Hamilton v. Bank of Blue Valley

746 F. Supp. 2d 1160 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 20, 2010

Plaintiffs respond that “to require the borrower to tender the entire loan amount would make any action against DEFENDANTS ... virtually immune from penalty for misconduct and overreaching.” … The claim accuses defendants of refusal “to comply with Plaintiffs’ qualified written request [ (“QWR”) ]” under RESPA, in particular, 12 U.S.C. § 2605 (e). Mr. and Mrs.

Varela v. State Farm General Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 16, 2020

Except as otherwise provided in this Order 1 Disclosure or Discovery Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so 2 designated before the material is disclosed or produced. 3 … If only a portion or 7 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 8 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 9

(PS) Cobb v. State of California

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. … In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 8 court will (1) accept as true all the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are 9 clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations

Whitfield v. Parmar

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 24, 2024

Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 7 2001) (dismissal required of in forma pauperis proceedings which seek monetary relief from 8 immune defendants); see also Cato v. … Plaintiff 3 does not provide plausible facts establishing that he suffered the loss of a legally protected right 4 as a result of his race.

Godines

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 29, 2026

If only a portion 22 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 23 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 5 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 6 appropriate markings in the margins).

(PC) Argel v. Godwin

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 21, 2021

possessed 24 with final authority to establish that policy.” … Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 1996), amended, 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998). 18 The Eighth Amendment right to food was clearly established as of at least 2001.

Schultz

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 29, 2025

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 21 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 22 490 U.S. at 327. … Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 25 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 26 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin