Case law

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.

(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

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

(PC) Rodriguez v. Cate

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 2, 2024

Defendants also contend they are entitled to 25 qualified immunity. … immunity. 1 may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.

(PS) Lull v. County of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 11, 2020

Code § 148(a)(1); the claim is barred by Heck v. 13 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) and the doctrine of equitable estoppel; and Stewart is 14 entitled to qualified immunity. … Factors relevant to determining whether a 20 party should be judicially estopped from advancing a position include: 1) the party’s position is 21 “clearly inconsistent” with its earlier position; 2) the judicial acceptance

(PC) Miles v. Stohlman

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 12, 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 complaint does not present plausible factual 4 allegations or legally coherent theories of liability establishing a claim for relief, and should be 5 dismissed. See Denton v.

(HC) Perez v. Spearman

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 25, 2022

established law. 3 Under both standards, “clearly established law” means those holdings of the United States 4 Supreme Court as of the time of the relevant state court decision. … For federal law to be clearly established, the Supreme Court must provide a 11 “categorical answer” to the question before the state court.

(PS) Channel v. Shulkin

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 5, 2019

The court provided instructions for amendment, 9 including discussion of Rule 8 pleading standards and the requirement that the new complaint be 10 a stand-alone document including all necessary facts and clearly identifying … To 15 establish a prima facie claim for discrimination, plaintiff must show that: (1) she is “disabled” as 16 that term is defined in Section 504 of the Act, (2) she was “otherwise qualified” for benefits she 17 was

Borboa

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

If only a portion or portions of the 15 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 16 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 17 … If only a portion or 25 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 26 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 27

Clinton D. Wallace v. Jason Johnson, Director, Division of Adult Parole Operations

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 22, 2025

Circuit court precedent “may be persuasive in determining what law is clearly 24 established and whether a state court applied that law unreasonably.” Stanley, 633 F.3d at 859 25 (quoting Maxwell v. … Further, 3 where courts of appeals have diverged in their treatment of an issue, there is no “clearly 4 established federal law” governing that issue. See Carey v.

(PC) Beaton v. IRS

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 17, 2023

Congress has 13 waived the United States’ sovereign immunity in civil actions seeking a refund or credit on 14 overpaid taxes. … Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing the prison mailbox rule); Campbell v.

(PC) Simmons v. Cates

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 9, 2023

“Section 455 clearly contemplates that decisions with respect to 16 disqualification should be made by the judge sitting in the case, and not by another judge.” … COURT’S ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY 2 It is well established that judges and other court officers, except in very limited 3 circumstances, enjoy absolute immunity from

Wallace v. Lemoore PD

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 28, 2021

Medical negligence was clearly displayed. I requested 25 medical attention and got none.” (Id. at 4). For the “injury” section for this claim, Plaintiff lists 26 “scars, puncture wounds, migraines, [and] blackouts.” … immunity. 10 B.P. v.

Yeager v. Corrections Corp. of America

944 F. Supp. 2d 913 · District Court, E.D. California · May 7, 2013

part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified … The circumstances in this case are clearly more apposite to those in Stone than Kees .

Cavazos v. County of Fresno

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 7, 2024

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 12 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 13 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 24 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected

Ceja v. Ford Motor Co.

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

warranted are not swept 20 unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order. 21 Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. 22 Designations that are shown to be clearly … This provision is not intended to modify 9 whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for 10 production without prior privilege review.

(PC) Garcia v. Diaz

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 7, 2024

a). 2 The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the complaint is frivolous or malicious, 3 fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant 4 who is immune … a ... policymaker possessed 10 with final authority to establish that policy.”

Thomas v. Family Healthcare Network

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

It is not well-taken that counsel for Plaintiff provided no explanation for this clearly incorrect statement of fact and law in his response to the Court’s order to 27 show cause. … This is particularly so since the FTCA waives 24 sovereign immunity.’ ” Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 25 Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1992)); McNeil v.

Thompson v. Saukhla

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 18, 2020

Designations that are shown 19 to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily 20 encumber or retard the case development process or to impose unnecessary expenses and … This provision is not intended to 16 modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production 17 without prior privilege review.

(PC) Bowcutt v. Daram

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 19, 2025

(Id. at 11.) 5 All defendants argue in the alternative that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity 10 Because plaintiff has failed to identify evidence that creates a triable issue of fact as to any 11 defendants’ deliberate indifference, the court