Case law

(PC) Hohmann v. St. Andre

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

complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 25 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The one significant qualifier is that “the remedies must indeed be 12 ‘available’ to the prisoner.” Id.

(PC) Chandra-Das v. John Doe No. 1

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 22, 2024

complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 7 legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 8 that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any 6 rights, privileges, or immunities

(PC) Miles v. Garland

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

Defendants have met their 24 burden of establishing that Appeal Number 15-15960 counts as a strike. … The dismissal was based on a finding that the official capacity 3 claims against the police officers were not cognizable and that defendant Moore was immune 4 from suit.

Jensen v. Hernandez

864 F. Supp. 2d 869 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 30, 2012

be contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law”). … Accordingly, the state appellate court’s decision -with respect to this claim is not contrary to clearly established federal law. See also Mejia v.

(PC) Augustine v. Shirley

District Court, E.D. California · May 28, 2025

Defendants also argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. 8 “While conditions of confinement may be, and often are, restrictive and harsh, they ‘must 9 not involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain … immunity. 14

Jeremiah Ruth v. Five Keys

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

IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 24 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The complaint establishes none of these elements. 23 For all the foregoing reasons, the complaint cannot be served.

Cleveland v. United States Department of Agriculture

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

for credit; and (4) he was denied credit despite being qualified. … Plaintiff 18 fails to demonstrate that he is a member of a protected class, that he was qualified for credit, and that 19 he was denied credit despite being qualified.

(PC) Mitchell v. Davey

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 27, 2020

Thus, no constitutional rights were violated 4 and Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.” … Thus, Defendant is entitled to qualified 9 immunity.” (Id. at 8–9) 10 d.

(HC) Deegan v. Warden, High Desert State Prison

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 29, 2022

Only Supreme Court precedent may constitute “clearly established 8 Federal law,” but courts may look to circuit law “to ascertain whether…the particular point in 9 issue is clearly established by Supreme Court precedent … The question at this stage is whether the state court 20 reasonably applied clearly established federal law to the facts before it. Id. at 181-182.

Hunt v. Matevousian

336 F. Supp. 3d 1159 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 1, 2018

A district court must first consider whether the claim presents a new context from previously established Bivens remedies. … As Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment claim clearly presents a new context in Bivens , this requires the consideration of any special factors counseling against extension of Bivens into this area, including whether there is any

(PC) Calvin D. Holt v. Alvarado

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 21, 2020

To 27 show discriminatory intent, a plaintiff must establish deliberate indifference by the public entity. 28 Duvall, 260 F.3d at 1138. … Mere negligence on the part of the prison official is not sufficient to establish liability, but 5 rather, the official’s conduct must have been wanton.

Trotsiouk

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

In 4 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 5 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 6 construes those allegations in the … Moreover, there are no allegations establishing “the existence of an 14 agreement or meeting of the minds to violate constitutional right” to establish a 15 conspiracy under Section 1983. See Mendocino Env't Ctr. v.

Navarro

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 30, 2026

Plaintiff states generally that Defendants “Navarro and Osmer 13 clearly saw the ‘dangerous conditions’ they were bringing Plaintiff across and therefore showed 14 ‘deliberate indifference’ when they continued …on uneven … A mere 23 difference in medical opinion is “insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish deliberate 24 indifference.’” Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058.

(PC) Haynes v. Orel

District 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.

Estate of Ezekiel Rivera, et al. v. Kern County Sheriff’s Department, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 23, 2026

The County and Sheriff’s Department argue at the 18 threshold that they are immune to these claims.2 (Doc. 27 at 14–15.) … Whether an officer had the 12 necessary “specific intent” depends on whether the right at issue was “clearly delineated and 13 plainly applicable under the circumstances” and whether the defendant officer had a “particular

(HC)Oscar L Flores v. Neil McDawell

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 25, 2021

Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 70-71 (2003); Williams, 529 1 U.S. at 412-413. 2 A state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law “if it applies a … A state court’s factual finding is 21 unreasonable when it is “so clearly incorrect that it would not be debatable among reasonable jurists.” 22 Jeffries, 114 F.3d at 1500; see Taylor v.

(HC) Thompson v. Pfeiffer

District 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

William J. Gradford, Jr. v. Stanislaus County Housing Authority, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 17, 2025

IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 27 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 28 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 9 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the amended complaint must allege facts 10 establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction.

(PC) Gann v. Corral

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 27, 2020

emphasized that “§ 1983 was not intended to abrogate a State's 19 Eleventh Amendment immunity.” … Hust, on qualified immunity grounds without change 8 or discussion of elements for an access to court claim)). 9 Finally, "[a]lthough prison officials may not obstruct a prisoner's access to the courts

Giles

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

“The burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of his status and 2 thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.” … Gonzalez qualifies for next-friend status, which would permit her to 25 initiate the instant petition on behalf of Petitioner, it does not allow Ms.