Case law

Williams v. Aetna Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 18, 2022

Judicial Immunity 7 Absolute judicial immunity is afforded to judges for acts performed by the judge that 8 relate to the judicial process. … This judicial immunity 14 insulates judges from suits brought under section 1983.

(PS) Devore v. CDCR

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 13, 2019

“‘It is 13 well established that agencies of the state are immune under Eleventh Amendment from private 14 damages or suits for injunctive relief brought in federal Court.’” Sato v. … Furthermore, nothing in § 1983 clearly abrogates Eleventh Amendment 26 immunity, thus, even if the State were a person, it would still be entitled to Eleventh Amendment 27 immunity.

Macomber

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 11, 2026

Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious 14 medical needs. See Wood v. … Immunity 26 Defendants also argue that the Court should grant summary judgment on the basis of 27 qualified immunity.

(PC) Eidem v. Vang

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 23, 2025

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 28 1 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies 12 for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by 13 making appropriate markings in the margins).

Payne v. Nissan North America, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 11, 2023

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 1 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 2 margins … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 13 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 14 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

Sanders v. Sutter Health Sac. Region

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 1, 2023

If only a portion 4 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 5 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 6 … If only a portion or portions of the material on 14 a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 15 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

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).

Perez v. County of Kern

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 26, 2025

for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated 2 before and/or at the time the material is disclosed or produced. … This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure 7 may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production without

(PS) Edmonds v. John Steward Company

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 20, 2022

However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma 4 pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. … There are three ways a “policy” can be established.

Percil

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 10, 2026

While plaintiff’s panic attacks and other ailments are likely sufficiently serious to be 6 constitutionally actionable, the FAC does not establish a causal link between them and 7 defendant’s actions. … than negligent”).2 19 While the undersigned is willing to entertain that plaintiff’s factual allegations show “more than 20 negligence,” Gordon, 888 F.3d at 1125, despite his use of the term, ultimately, the lack of clearly

(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.)

(PC) Pierre-Jones v. Defranco

District Court, E.D. California · May 12, 2025

A merits-based determination largely is premature as 18 discovery is ongoing in this action, particularly given Plaintiff’s conclusory argument that his 19 “allegations, if proved, could clearly establish a constitutional … Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that 2 “[a]lthough discovery was essential … the need for such discovery does not necessarily qualify the 3 issues involved as ‘complex’”).

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

(PS) Winston v. EDC Animal Services

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

When a Rule 9 12(b)(1) motion attacks the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact, plaintiff has the burden 10 of establishing that such jurisdiction does in fact exist. … Judicial Immunity 3 With respect to defendant El Dorado County Superior Court, plaintiffs are advised that 4 judges are generally absolutely immune from civil liability for

(PC) Mays v. Stanton Correctional Facility

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

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 4 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 5 490 U.S. at 327. … On July 29, 2023, Officer Pillay responded to 18 plaintiff’s grievance, noting that the Snellen eye test was repeated and showed plaintiff did not 19 qualify for an optometry referral.2 (ECF No. 12 at 5.)

Lugo

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 8, 2025

Except as otherwise provided in this Order 8 (see, e.g., Paragraphs 5.2(b) below), or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure or Discovery 9 Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly … If only a 14 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must 15 clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g. by making appropriate markings in the margins). 16

Ebraz Exportadora Ltda. v. TerraFresh Organics LLC

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 14, 2026

If only a portion or portions of the material on a 4 page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 5 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 16 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by 17 making appropriate markings in the

(PS) Douglas v. Sony Group Corp.

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 19, 2024

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.

Cruz

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 26, 2026

But, as with the Fourth Amendment claim, the complaint 20 does not clearly allege what actions by each of those defendants violated Plaintiff’s right to 21 substantive due process, when those actions violated Plaintiff … But the complaint does not identify with particularity any details regarding the 8 “established policy” at issue. See Estate of Lopez v.

(PC) Foster v. Campbell

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 27, 2024

While Plaintiff alleges that he was falsely charged, he 20 failed to allege that this action was taken because he engaged in some protected conduct. 21 Plaintiff failed to identify anything he did that might qualify as … Therefore, Plaintiff failed to establish a connection or link between the actions of any 4 defendant and the alleged deprivation of his constitutional rights.