Case law

Michael Cadillac, Inc. v. General Motors LLC

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 8, 2024

If only a 2 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must 3 clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 4 … If only a portion or portions of the material 12 on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 13 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

Ewell v. Diebert

137 B.R. 963 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 6, 1990

Appellant and the president of the buyer corporation filed declarations in support of a motion to extend the escrow established in the pending sale. … Clearly, had application to the bankruptcy court not been successful, the appellant had recourse to apply to the district court. Now there is no way that the legal effect of this sale can be undone.

(PC) Cooke v. Lucca

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 8, 2023

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 18 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 19 490 U.S. at 327. … Plaintiff is advised that in an amended 28 complaint he must clearly identify each defendant and the action that defendant took that violated 1 his constitutional rights.

Ireland v. Flowserve Corp.

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 21, 2025

If only a portion of the material on a document page qualifies 20 for protection, the Designating Party must also clearly identify the protected 21 portion(s) (e.g. by making appropriate markings, … Prior knowledge must be established 26 by pre-production documentation. 27 10.

(PC) Rilurcasa v. State of California

District Court, E.D. California · May 2, 2023

Id. 2 Defendant argues Plaintiff’s own statements establish that the grievance process was 3 available to him and that he “exhausted one appeal, including one that was unjustly cancelled.” 4 (ECF No. 38 at … Major life activities 23 also include the operation of major bodily functions, such as “functions of the immune system, 24

(PC) Johnston v. CDCR Health Care

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 2, 2021

As a basic 26 matter, the complaint does not clearly state, as to each defendants, what happened, when it 27 happened or who was involved. … possessed 8 with final authority to establish that policy.”

(PS) Frye v. Situ

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

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 … Accordingly, the complaint does not establish 8 this court’s jurisdiction, does not comply with Rule 8, and fails to state a claim on which relief 9 may be granted.

Doescher v. Aragon

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

That statute ensures “the homeless child has the 13 benefit of matriculating with his or her peers in accordance with the established feeder patterns of 14 school districts,” even if the student becomes homeless or finds … Their 10 complaint also clearly lays out the connections between their beliefs, their alleged injuries and the 11 state’s immunization requirements, as summarized above. 12 In Miller, the court focused

(PC) Webster v. Look

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

Defendant’s motion to dismiss asserts the following grounds for dismissal: (1) 3 plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment; (2) defendant 4 is entitled to qualified immunity … ; and (3) the FAC establishes plaintiff failed to properly exhaust 5 administrative remedies before filing suit.

Payne v. Merced County Public Defender's Office

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

If only a portion 8 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 9 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 10 … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 18 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 19 appropriate markings in the margins).

(PS) Wilson v. Raye

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 3, 2020

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.

Perez

District Court, E.D. California · May 29, 2026

To establish a violation of this duty, a prisoner must first demonstrate an 11 objectively serious deprivation, one that amounts to the denial of “the minimal civilized measures 12 of life’s necessities.” Keenan v. … “The State 15 of California has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to claims brought 16 under § 1983 in federal court....”

Schultz

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 8, 2026

complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 8 legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 9 that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Although the 22 undersigned can make out the type of claims plaintiff seeks to bring, the allegations do not clearly 23 establish what happened, when and where each incident complained of took place, and who was 24

Michael Bruce Anthony McPherson, aka Makal B. Makfarsan v. Federal District Courts, et al.

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

or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 28 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 1 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The Court may . . . dismiss a claim 10 as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual 11 contentions are clearly baseless.” Howell v.

Munoz v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 7, 2023

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 portion(s) 25 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins) … If only a portion or portions of 7 the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 8 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 9 margins

(PC) Brown v. Wong

District Court, E.D. California · May 15, 2023

Defendant moves for summary judgment, 20 arguing that plaintiff cannot show that he was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need 21 or, in the alternative, that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … immunity defense.

(HC) Rodriguez v. Koenig

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 5, 2023

For purposes of applying § 2254(d)(1), “clearly established federal law” 4 consists of holdings of the United States Supreme Court at the time of … established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.

(PC) Harper v. Farhat

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 9, 2024

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 13 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 14 490 U.S. at 327. … So, for deliberate indifference to be 2 established, there must be a purposeful act or failure to act on the part of the defendant and 3 resulting harm. Simmons v. G. Arnett, 47 F.4th 927, 933 (9th Cir. 2022).

(PC) Concepcion v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 16, 2021

(“Plata”), and (e) CDCR and CCHS are immune from 9 suit. … Immunity 17 Defendants contend that CDCR and CCHCS “are immune from suit under the Eleventh 18 Amendment.” (Doc. 27-1 at 26.)

Medina

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 18, 2026

550 U.S. at 556–557. 18 Plaintiff’s amended complaint is short, but it is not a plain statement of his claims. 19 Plaintiff’s allegations are disjointed, and the Court is unable to clearly … To establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment, the prisoner must 25 “show that the officials acted with deliberate indifference . . .” Labatad v. Corrs.