Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
0.61s
District Court, E.D. California · Aug 29, 2022
If only a portion 26 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 27 identify the protected 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 8 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 9 appropriate markings in the margins).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 24, 2025
Only Supreme Court precedent may constitute “clearly established 23 Federal law,” but courts may look to circuit law “to ascertain whether…the particular point in 24 issue is clearly established by Supreme Court precedent … The question at this stage is whether the state court 7 reasonably applied clearly established federal law to the facts before it. Id. at 181-182.
Cited 0 timesUnknownCharmar Williams v. Kern State Prison, et al.
District Court, E.D. California · Nov 20, 2025
Plaintiff failed to clearly state factual support for what happened, 28 when it happened, and who was involved. As Plaintiff was informed, he must allege what each 1 defendant did that violated his rights. … Even gross 25 negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood 26 v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownBaca v. National Express Transit Corporation
District Court, E.D. California · Dec 16, 2022
If only a 1 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 2 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 3 … If only a portion or 12 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 13 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 14
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 26, 2023
Moreover, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma pauperis 1 status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. … Under this standard, a court must dismiss a complaint as frivolous 18 where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are 19 clearly baseless.
Cited 0 timesUnknownWhite v. Sacramento Police Dept.
District Court, E.D. California · Nov 29, 2022
If only a portion 22 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 23 identify the protected 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 4 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 5 appropriate markings in the margins).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 30, 2024
The plaintiff has the burden of 16 establishing the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Edison v. United States, 822 F.3d 510, 517 17 (9th Cir. 2016). … See, e.g., Lesoeur, 21 F.3d at 969 (National Park Service’s 10 “failure to warn that the Tribe’s rafting tours were not regulated clearly implicated important 11 political policy considerations” impacting relations between
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 9, 2025
Id. at 251–52. 26 In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not 27 establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. … A plaintiff is required to meet the following four criteria 14 in order to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination: (1) he belongs to a protected class; 15 (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he was
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Ramirez v. CDCR - California Corrections
District Court, E.D. California · Oct 21, 2020
“[E]ven gross negligence is insufficient to establish a 2 constitutional violation.” Id. (citing Wood v. … Cases in 28 this Circuit addressing First Amendment retaliation claims involve situations where the action 1 taken by the defendant was clearly adverse to the plaintiff. See Hines v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 9, 2023
The BPH is required to enact regulations establishing a 3 procedure for inmates to object to factual errors in their CRA and a written response to be 4 received prior to their parole consideration hearing. 2:12-cv-1059 … As CDCR and BPH are state agencies, they 7 are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 5, 2025
Plaintiff alleges that “stop 17 resisting” was “clearly a pre-arranged signal” between the three defendants, because as soon as 18 Gonzalez made that statement, plaintiff was scooped and slammed forward. Id. … To establish an Eighth Amendment 9 violation, a plaintiff must allege that he was deprived of something sufficiently serious and that 10 the deprivation occurred with a deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s health
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 10, 2019
In addition, to prevail on a malicious prosecution 3 claim under § 1983, Plaintiff must establish that the prior proceedings terminated in such a … The payments shall be clearly identified 11 by the name and number assigned to this action. 12
Cited 0 timesUnknownSuckut v. AllTran Financial, LP
District Court, E.D. California · Oct 18, 2022
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 … 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 19 margins
Cited 0 timesUnknownKamillia Pelton v. San Joaquin County, et al.
District Court, E.D. California · Aug 19, 2026
Officer Defendants 16 “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions [are entitled to] a qualified 17 immunity, shielding them from civil damages liability as long … It is “well-established 19 that there is generally no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases.” United States v. Sardone, 20 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 3, 2022
First, the Supreme Court has clearly 7 established precedent on what is required to establish a selective prosecution claim or defense. 8 See Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 463-66. … First, the absence of clearly 16 established Supreme Court precedent establishing a right to federal habeas relief based on the 17 exclusion of expert evidence pursuant to state evidentiary rules is fatal to his claim
Cited 0 timesUnknownMalan v. Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company
District Court, E.D. California · Oct 7, 2022
If only a portion 21 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 22 identify the protected 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 6 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 7 appropriate markings in the margins).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 26, 2024
immunity. … Plaintiff’s initial complaint (filed in May 17 2019) clearly alleged that he had been denied medical care and had yet to receive properly 18 fitting lenses. (ECF No. 1, p. 3).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 11, 2020
4 with final authority to establish that policy.” … its sovereign immunity or 9 Congress abrogates it.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 26, 2026
IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 23 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks 24 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 11 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 12 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 24, 2021
“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 28 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Here, plaintiff’s allegations fail to establish that the limitation 3 on his canteen purchases lacked penological justification.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna