Case law

(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....

Sanchez

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 5, 2026

To establish a 13 failure to protect claim, a prisoner must establish that prison officials were deliberately indifferent 14 … with the Government Claims Act. 28 1 Bodde, 32 Cal.4th at 1243. 2 Plaintiff’s complaint does not clearly

Grower Direct Nut Company, Inc. v. Indemnity Insurance Company of North America

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 4, 2026

Designations that are shown 8 to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily 9 encumber or retard the case development process or to impose unnecessary expenses and burdens … Order must be clearly so designated 17 before the material is disclosed or produced. 18 Designation in conformity with this Order requires: 19 (a) For information in documentary

(PC) Haro v. Nguyen

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 26, 2024

27 28 1 immunity. … Lai and Nguyen’s motion for summary judgment argues that the undisputed facts 22 show that they were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights and that they 23 are entitled to qualified immunity

(PS) Plousha v. Aspen Park Apartments

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 25, 2025

The Complaint also fails to 8 establish diversity jurisdiction. … 27 action, there is no federal cause of action clearly asserted as stated above.

(PS) Eggman v. Miller

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 9, 2020

However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in 3 forma pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. 4 “‘A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis … 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.

Watts Jr. v. I.Q. Data International, Inc.

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

If only 20 a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 21 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by 22 making appropriate markings … 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) 6 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials v. Noonan

600 F. Supp. 2d 1088 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 26, 2009

As stat *1120 ed succinctly by the Herdahl court, such overtly, religious classes are not presented “objectively as part of a secular program of education” and thus, clearly violate the Establishment Clause. … Clearly, the “ministerial exception” has no applicability to this case.

(PC) Hernandez v. California Department of Corrections

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 8, 2020

Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (Eleventh Amendment 20 immunity extends to state agencies); see also Hafer v. … Circumstances 12 common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 13 establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 14 counsel

(PS) Faruki v. Housing Authority for the County of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 3, 2025

forma pauperis 24 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 25 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 26 immune … See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). 1 “To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) [ ]he is a 2 qualified individual with a disability; (2) [ ]he was excluded from participation in or

Ashton

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2025

Regardless 3 of which Party files the Designation Motion, the Designating Party shall have the burden of 4 demonstrating and establishing the applicability of its “Confidential” designation. … In particular, the Parties do not waive, and expressly retain the right to assert in this Action 13 or other investigation or lawsuit, the application of any common law or statutory privileges or any 14 theory of immunity

(PC) Jackson v. Babu

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 6, 2023

By establishing the existence of a serious medical need, a prisoner satisfies the 2 objective requirement for proving an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer v. … “Judges and those performing 11 judge-like functions are absolutely immune from damage liability for acts performed in their 12 official capacities.” Ashelman v.

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

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 13, 2024

4-6.) 9 Defendants’ factual arguments fail for several reasons. 10 First, a self-serving declaration written by the defendant in 11 question hardly qualifies … June 5 19, 2018) (“Section 2802 requires an employer to indemnify an 6 employee for liability incurred by the employee in the scope of 7 the employee’s employment; it does not render the employee immune

(PC) Walker v. Walker

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 13, 2023

“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 6 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Yarbor was acting within the scope of her prosecutorial duties, she is 20 immune from suit. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 420 (1976).

(PS) Calmelet v. Board of Trustees of the CSU

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 4, 2020

Defendants further argue, to the extent Plaintiff has stated a 3 viable retaliation claim in Count Two, that the individually-named Defendants are entitled 4 to qualified immunity and that the Eleventh Amendment to the … Nor is it necessary to determine whether, in the event Plaintiff was successful in 12 stating a retaliation claim, that claim was subject to qualified immunity on the part of the 13 individual Defendants or stated sufficient

Sanchez v. United States Bureau of Land Management

District Court, E.D. California · May 29, 2024

waiver of immunity.3 (U.S. … accordingly. 28 1 59-68.) 2 To establish

(PC) Miles v. Sutter County Sherriff

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

forma pauperis 3 proceeding, and mut order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 4 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 5 immune … 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.

Williams v. County of Fresno

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 20, 2021

It is well established 7 that court appointed attorneys are not acting under color of state law for § 1983 purposes but 8 rather act as an advocate for their client. Polk v. … Defendant Guerra is entitled to absolute immunity for these clearly judicial actions 21 taken during the course of the state action.

United States v. State Water Resources Control Board

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 4, 2019

could not be separated easily from complex state law issues with respect to which state courts might have special competence; and third, that federal 9 review might disrupt state efforts to establish … May 22, 2006) (CEQA claim qualified for Burford 24 abstention because “California has put into place a specialized procedure to quickly and consistently

Doe v. El Dorado Union High School District

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

Whether Title IX supports individual 24 liability claims is not well-established. … It is well-established that “state officers [are not 19 immune under the Eleventh Amendment] from personal liability 20 under section 1983 solely by virtue of the “official” nature of 21 their