Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
0.46s
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).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict 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.”).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 2, 2021
Except as otherwise provided in this Order, 17 or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure or Discovery Material that qualifies for 18 protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before the material … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies 26 for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by 27 making appropriate markings in the margins).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 6, 2025
The Court must dismiss a complaint or 24 portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can 25 be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Thus, the complaint 20 fails to establish municipal liability because any alleged constitutional deprivations were not the 21 result of a policy or custom.
Cited 0 timesUnknownElieser David Mejia Moran v. Tae D. Johnson, et al.
District Court, E.D. California · Apr 17, 2026
“The burden is on the ‘next 13 friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the 14 court.” … Quimby qualifies for next-friend status, which would 12 permit him to initiate the instant petition, he is not authorized to prosecute this action pro se on 13 Petitioner’s behalf. Thus, either (1) Mr.
Cited 0 timesUnknownPappion 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.
Cited 5 timesPublishedSequoia Insurance Company v. Broan-Nutone, LLC
District Court, E.D. California · Sep 3, 2024
If only a 19 || portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must 20 || clearly 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 protection, the 2 || Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 3 || markings in the margins)
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 17, 2024
or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised 13 claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 14 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Id. at 1140. 11 To establish a violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”), a plaintiff must 12 show “(1) she is handicapped within the meaning of the [RA]; (2) she is otherwise qualified for 13
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Rigor v. Santa Clara County
District Court, E.D. California · Aug 17, 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 of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 9 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations
Cited 0 timesUnknownWoods v. Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc.
628 F. Supp. 2d 1173 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 22, 2007
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. … Plaintiffs complaint here addresses conduct that clearly falls within the duties of furnishers of information as described in § 1681s-2(a).
Cited 4 timesPublishedMenon v. Geovera Holdings, Inc.
District Court, E.D. California · Sep 3, 2025
If only a portion or 12 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 13 … A sealing order will issue only upon a request establishing that the Protected Material at 20 issue is privileged, protectable as a trade secret,
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS)Tanksley v. Sacramento Room & Board
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 25, 2021
However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma 4 pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. … Under this standard, a court must dismiss a 21 complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the 22 factual contentions are clearly baseless.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict 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.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Rigor v. California State University Sacramento
District Court, E.D. California · Aug 13, 2019
IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 26 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 27 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 12 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 13 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations
Cited 0 timesUnknown393 B.R. 712 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 12, 2008
“In order to qualify for the § 523(a)(6) ‘willful and malicious’ exception to discharge ... the debtor must have acted with either the desire to injure or a belief that injury was substantially certain to occur.” … Subjective intent or substantial certainty may be inferred from all of the facts and circumstances established. Nahman v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 2, 2025
Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified 26 immunity. … Some states have established their own MCLs. For example, Hawaii established a state MCL of 0.6 28 μg/L. In December 2017, a California regulation established an MCL of 0.005 1 μg/L.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 4, 2024
Smith or 12 Price did to violate his rights. 13 Eleventh Amendment Immunity 14 “The Eleventh Amendment grants a State immunity from … Even gross 23 negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood 24 v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 24, 2021
To establish a failure to protect claim, the prisoner must 18 establish that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to a sufficiently serious … Aug. 8, 2017) (“Supervisor defendants are entitled to qualified 16 immunity where the allegations against them are simply ‘bald’ or ‘conclusory’ because such 17 allegations do not ‘plausibly’ establish the supervisors
Cited 0 timesUnknownSylvester v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Dept.
District Court, E.D. California · Dec 13, 2023
immunity. … Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 841 n.5 (1998) (“[T]he better approach to resolving cases in which the defense of 23 qualified immunity is raised is to determine first whether the plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a constitutional
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 7, 2026
If only a 10 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 11 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in … If only a 20 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 21 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna