Case law

Phillips v. Sacramento Department of Child Support Services

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 23, 2024

Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) 10 (dismissal required of in forma pauperis proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune 11 defendants); Cato v. … However, 28 “[c]hild support payments ‘do not qualify as “debts” under the FDCPA because they were not 1 incurred to receive consumer goods or services.

Sanders v. Mims

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 8, 2022

portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 25 “frivolous or malicious,” that “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seeks 26 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … A Monell claim can proceed under three theories of municipal liability: “(1) when 1 official policies or established customs inflict a constitutional injury; (2) when omissions or failures to 2 act amount to a local government

Sauer

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 18, 2025

If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 5 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 6 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a 16 portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 17 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings 18 in the margins).

(PC) Bustamante v. Spearman

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 16, 2019

“To establish a violation of 13 Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) [he] is a qualified individual with a disability; 14 (2) [he] was excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against with … Id. 17 Here, Plaintiff has pleaded no facts that establish he is a qualified individual with a 18 disability under the ADA.

Pearline Jackson v. The State and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 24, 2025

Even gross 18 negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood 19 v. … In order to state a claim for the denial of court 13 access, a prisoner must establish that she suffered an actual injury. Id. at 349.

Richard L. Daugherty, Sr. v. Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 9, 2026

In 2 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 3 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 4 construes those allegations in the … “In order to establish 5 municipal liability [under Monell], a plaintiff must show that a ‘policy or custom’ led to the 6 plaintiff’s injury.” Castro v.

(PC) Spencer v. Pulido-Esparza

District Court, E.D. California · May 10, 2023

Amendment immunity also extends to state officials sued in their official 28 capacities. … To 19 the contrary, as discussed above in the section titled Eleventh Amendment Immunity, CDCR as 20 a state agency is entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, as are Defendants 21 Sherman and Smith as state

(PC) Ilsung v. Yeh

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

By establishing the existence of a serious medical need, a prisoner satisfies the 21 objective requirement for proving an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer v. … In an amended complaint plaintiff must clearly identify each 3 defendant and the action that defendant took that violated his constitutional rights.

Oliver v. Ford Motor Company

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 5, 2025

If only a portion or portions of the material on 16 a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 17 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … This provision is not intended to modify whatever 12 procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production 13 without prior privilege review.

Garnett v. ADT LLC

139 F. Supp. 3d 1121 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 6, 2015

This letter clearly notified LWDA both of the specific labor code provisions alleged to have been violated and of plaintiffs allegation that defendant violated California Labor Code section 226 by failing to “list hours worked … Conclusion Though plaintiff may qualify as an “outside salesperson,” she was not properly classified as exempt from California Labor Code section 226.

Clark v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

732 F. Supp. 2d 1038 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 9, 2010

It is well established that there is no requirement under California law that the party initiating foreclosure be in possession of the original note. Nool v. … Plaintiff further alleges that he sent a Qualified Written Request (“QWR”) to BANA and the reply was untimely.

National Wildlife Federation v. Babbitt

128 F. Supp. 2d 1274 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 15, 2000

Because the area was subject until recently to frequent flooding, the Basin has remained relatively immune from development despite its proximity to a growing metropolitan region. … First, the evidence cited does not establish that the Service’s motivations were other than scientific.

Cowan

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 12, 2025

Defendants also 19 contended that Officers Weaver and Cowan were entitled to summary judgment on the merits, 20 and/or on qualified immunity grounds. ECF No. 43-1 at 14-23. … ECF No. 55. 14 Counsel for defendants filed an interlocutory appeal of the order denying qualified immunity to 15 Weaver and Cowan. ECF No. 63. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision.

AuCopious, LLC v. SPG14, LLC

District Court, E.D. California · May 12, 2025

(Doc. 71 at 2.)3 Defendants maintain that “the TAC does 18 not clearly identify any valid basis for the Court’s jurisdiction over this matter.” (Doc. 73 at 2.) 19 II. … (See Doc. 70 at 3 [“Though Plaintiffs cite various federal statutes and case 5 law in the TAC, they have not clearly identified a valid basis for the Court’s jurisdiction.”].)

Jerry Cox v. Mariposa County

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 26, 2021

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 24 The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary 25 functions from liability for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Second, the 9 court decides whether the right is clearly established such that a reasonable government official 10 would have known that “his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Id.

(HC) Russ v. Price

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 14, 2022

A decision is “contrary 17 to” clearly established federal law if the state court either: (1) applied a rule that contradicts the 18 governing law set forth by Supreme Court case law; or (2) reached a different result … Musladin, 549 U.S. 70, 76 (2006) (“Given the lack of 13 holdings from this Court regarding” the claim, “it cannot be said that the state court ‘unreasab[ly] 14 appli[ed] clearly established Federal law.”).

(PS) Bird v. Porter

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 22, 2024

However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma 1 pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. … Under this standard, a court must dismiss a 18 complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the 19 factual contentions are clearly baseless.

Armando Z. D. L. C. v. Warden, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 7, 2026

“The 10 burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the 11 jurisdiction of the court.” … Hercules qualifies for next-friend status, which would permit her to 8 initiate the instant petition, she is not authorized to prosecute this action pro se on Petitioner’s 9 behalf.

(HC) Munoz v. Godwin

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

Only Supreme Court precedent 4 may constitute “clearly established Federal law,” but circuit law has persuasive value regarding 5 what law is “clearly established” and what constitutes “unreasonable application” of that … Moreover, the only clearly 26 established federal law that petitioner cites in support of his due process challenge is Boykin v. 27 Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969).

Pappion v. R-Ranch Property Owners Ass'n

110 F. Supp. 3d 1017 · District Court, E.D. California · May 21, 2015

In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. … For instance, a facility that specializes in hosting wedding receptions and private parties may be open only to invitees of the bride and groom, yet it clearly qualifies as a public accommodation.