Case law

Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Norton

194 F. Supp. 2d 1066 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 22, 2002

was established by the 1996 Housing Plan. … Further, the NPS’ decision regarding the boundaries for the El Portal segment is clearly tied to the protection of river values.

(PC) Robles v. Cueva

District 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.

Crowley v. Faison

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 3, 2022

Nor is there any dispute that Defendants qualify as users of 13 such services for purposes of the Act. See Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1030 14 (9th Cir. 2003 (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)); see also Barrett v. … In assessing a common interest privilege, the defendant bears 7 the initial burden of establishing that the statement in question was indeed made on a 8 privileged occasion.

Elieser 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.

Fields v. Hill

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 13, 2025

Plaintiff must clearly identify which 2 defendant(s) she believes is or are responsible for each violation of her constitutional rights and set 3 forth the supporting factual basis so that the complaint places each defendant … “To establish a conspiracy, a plaintiff must demonstrate 1 the existence of an agreement or ‘meeting of the minds’ to violate constitutional rights.” Mendocino 2 Environmental Center v.

(PC)Yandell v. Washington

District Court, E.D. California · May 12, 2021

The absence of authority for the right 27 asserted by plaintiff would support dismissal at the screening stage on grounds of qualified immunity. See Chavez v. … Robinson, 817 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016) (district court may 28 dismiss § 1983 complaint sua sponte and pre-service on grounds of qualified immunity). 1 general application—whether a jail-wide policy such as a COVID

Gonzalez v. Amazon.com Services LLC

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 13, 2025

If only a 18 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must 19 clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 20 … This 11 provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order 12 that provides for production without prior privilege review.

Sylvester 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

Quesada v. Marten Transport, Ltd

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 25, 2024

If only a 5 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party 6 also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings 7 in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of 17 the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 18 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 19

(PS)Sn v. Mata

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 12, 2022

SCREENING 24 A determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis status does not 25 complete the inquiry required by the statute. … IFP statute requires federal courts to 26 dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which 27 relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

(PS) White v. City and County of West Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 7, 2021

This immunity 14 extends to police officers. See, e.g., Baughman v. State of California, 38 Cal. App. 4th 15 182, 192 (1995); see also Asgari v. … Superior Ct. of Contra Costa Cty. found that school 20 districts were not business establishments for purposes of the Unruh Act. 57 Cal.

Ruiz v. General Insurance Company of America

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 25, 2021

Except as otherwise provided in this Order, 8 or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, material that qualifies for protection under this Order must 9 be clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or produced … If only a portion or portions of the material 25 on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 26 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

(PC) Estrada v. Well Path

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

Plaintiff has relentlessly 5 submitted numerous Health Care Service Request forms requesting defendants to schedule an 6 appointment with a physician who is qualified to address Plaintiff’s spinal pain and discomfort. … injunction 14 that goes beyond maintaining the status quo pendente lite, ‘courts should be extremely cautious’ 15 about issuing a preliminary injunction and should not grant such relief unless the facts and law 16 clearly

H.M. v. County of Kern

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 31, 2022

App. 3d 1035, 1050 (1986). 2 An organization has sufficient business attributes to qualify as a “business establishment” 3 under the Unruh Act when it appears to operate in a capacity that is the functional equivalent … App’x 43, 45 (9th 20 Cir. 2003) (affirming holding the county social services department did not qualify as business 21 establishment); Roe v. Rialto Unified Sch. Dist., 2020 WL 2790008, at *5 (C.D. Cal.

(PS) Sprague v. Krause

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 1, 2020

, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and judicial immunity. … Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486. 11 Here, the complaint clearly challenges defendants’ rulings in the state court appellate 12 action.

Faulkner v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance

860 F. Supp. 2d 1127 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 16, 2012

He does not claim that plaintiff could work 40 hours a week, nor any more than the 18 hours per week established by Dr. Green. Dr. … Mekjian described tend to establish disability, not to disprove it. 3.

Forsyth

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 16, 2025

Plaintiff does not clearly allege a separate 15 cause of action and what procedural protection she believes she was entitled to but 16 denied. … There is a “clearly established due 18 process right not to be subjected to criminal charges on the basis of false evidence that 19 was deliberately fabricated by the government.” Devereaux v.

Tiffany Harrison Shabazz v. Mercy San Juan Medical Center, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 28, 2026

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 19 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 20 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations … In order to qualify, a person must be “incapable of 5 caring for his property or transacting business or understanding the nature or effects of his acts.” 6 Alcott Rehab. Hosp. v.

Caetano v. Internal Revenue Service

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

such immunity and consented to be sued.” 15 Gilbert v. … U.S., 639 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2011). 17 If a plaintiff cannot establish that its action against the United States falls within a waiver of 18 sovereign immunity, the action must be dismissed.

(PC) Gleason v. CDCR

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 25, 2020

Under the 4 Eleventh Amendment, state agencies enjoy sovereign immunity from private suits for damages or 5 injunctive relief in federal court, unless the state has waived or Congress has validly overridden 6 such immunity … Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 67, 71 (1989) 10 (“We cannot conclude that § 1983 was intended to disregard the well-established immunity of a 11 State from being sued without its consent....