Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.47s
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 22, 2022
complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 25 “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 2 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 16, 2022
Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to 26 serious medical needs. See Wood v. … In any amended complaint, 11 Plaintiff must clearly and succinctly state what happened, when it happened, and who was 12 involved in the alleged denial of his medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 13
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 28, 2025
In 12 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 13 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 14 construes those allegations in the … The Complaint also fails to 9 establish diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff fails to state the amount in controversy and does 10 not establish complete diversity of citizenship.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 25, 2024
If only a portion or portions of the material on a 24 page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 25 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 26 … If only a portion or portions of the 7 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 9 margins).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 16, 2023
Plaintiff does not state a potentially colorable Takings Clause claim because he 19 does not clearly allege that his property was taken for public use. … An authorized 1 deprivation is one carried out pursuant to established state procedures, regulations, or statutes. 2 Piatt v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownJesse Lee Shavers, Jr. v. Schriver, et al.
District Court, E.D. California · Dec 3, 2025
plaintiff 27 initiated the assault against the other inmate; (2) they had no prior knowledge of any risk of harm 28 to his safety; (3) they acted quickly once the altercation occurred; and (4) they are entitled to 1 qualified … immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Rayburn v. California Highway Patrol
District Court, E.D. California · Feb 6, 2025
These facts are not 14 sufficient to establish Monell liability. … Plaintiff's amended complaint shall be clearly labeled as the 14 “Second Amended Complaint.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 3, 2019
or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 12 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 13 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … [T]hat edict contains one significant qualifier: the remedies must indeed be 13 “available” to the prisoner.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 16, 2026
And for that 2 reason, it is not necessary to decide whether the officers followed an adequate process, see 3 Gonzales, 545 U.S. at 768 & n.14, nor whether they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The Court grants the motion 25 for summary judgment of the second claim, again without reaching the officers’ assertion of 26 qualified immunity. 27 III.
Cited 0 timesUnknownHogan v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
District Court, E.D. California · Sep 23, 2024
If only 21 a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 22 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 23 markings in the margins … If only a 5 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 6 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 7 markings in the margins).
Cited 0 timesUnknownSwedlow v. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service
District Court, E.D. California · Apr 5, 2022
Under § 6428(a), eligible 10 individuals may receive a tax credit in the amount of $1,200 ($2,400 if filing a joint return), plus 11 $500 multiplied by the number of qualifying children. Scholl I, 489 F. … Furthermore, to overcome 17 sovereign immunity in a tax refund action, the taxpayer must file a refund claim with the IRS 18 within the time limits established by the Internal Revenue Code. N. Life Ins. Co. v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownRoberson v. Saputo Cheese USA, Inc.
District Court, E.D. California · Jul 3, 2024
If only a portion 10 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 11 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 20 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 21 appropriate markings in the margins).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 10, 2022
Claims are frivolous where they are based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or 2 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 7 limited to, quasi-judicial immunity, sovereign immunity, or qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownFord v. Kern High School District
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 29, 2022
Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required of in forma pauperis 1 proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. … To establish a prima facie case for Title VII discrimination, plaintiff 7 must show the following: (1) they are a member of a protected class; (2) they were qualified for 8 the position; (3) they suffered an adverse
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Caetano v. Board of State and Community Corrections
District Court, E.D. California · May 2, 2023
a ... policymaker possessed 12 with final authority to establish that policy.” … Federally, this qualifies as mail 2 fraud.” (Id.)
Cited 0 timesUnknownCoalition for a Sustainable Delta v. JOHN McCAMMAN
725 F. Supp. 2d 1162 · District Court, E.D. California · Jul 21, 2010
Rather, State Defendants seek to qualify and/or explain those statements. For example, Plaintiffs assert that Mr. … Souza claims no expertise that qualifies him to opine on these subjects.
Cited 10 timesPublished(PS) Trotter v. Sacramento Housing Program
District Court, E.D. California · Sep 28, 2022
A 24 court may dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory 25 or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. … To establish a prima face case of disparate treatment under the FHA, a plaintiff must 8 show (1) she is a member of a protected class who applied for and was qualified for housing, 9 (2) the housing authority rejected
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 20, 2022
Plaintiff is required to submit filings which are “clearly legible.” Local Rule 130(b). … However, the one significant qualifier 26 27 is that “the remedies must indeed be ‘available’ to the prisoner.” Id.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 20, 2021
As a basic 6 matter, the complaint does not clearly state what happened, when it happened or who was 7 involved. … To prove liability for an action or policy, the 28 plaintiff “must... demonstrate that his deprivation resulted from an official policy or custom 1 established by a... policymaker possessed with final authority to establish
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 7, 2025
Designations that are 5 shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose (e.g., to 6 unnecessarily encumber or retard the case development process or to impose unnecessary 7 expenses and … This 22 provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order 23 that provides for production without prior privilege review.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna