Case law

Hardesty v. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

935 F. Supp. 2d 968 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 25, 2013

Finally, at argument counsel for defendants O’Bryant, Norris, Testa, Sherry, Storelli and Moffitt argued that their clients are entitled to qualified immunity. … Township of West Bloomfield, 531 F.3d 385, 391-92 (6th Cir.2008) (finding an inspector was not entitled to qualified immunity for administrative search undertaken at behest of law enforcement).

(PC) Davis v. Pam

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 1, 2021

“A showing of 11 medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under 12 the Eighth Amendment.” Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060. … “[E]ven gross negligence is insufficient to 13 establish a constitutional violation.” Id. (citing Wood v.

(PS) Brito v. TSA

District Court, E.D. California · May 5, 2025

Section 1591, 4 in turn, requires Plaintiff to establish that she was ‘harbor[ed]’ or ‘provid[ed]’ and ‘cause[d] . . . 5 to engage in a commercial sex act’ by ‘means of force, threats of force, fraud, [or] coercion.’” … Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (holding 16 that a complaint is frivolous if its “factual contentions are clearly baseless,” “fantastic,” or 17 “delusional”).

(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

(PS) Olson v. Hornbook Community Services District

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 6, 2023

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.

D.J.M.J. v. City of Lincoln

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 19, 2023

But the court will dismiss such unnamed defendants if discovery clearly would not uncover their identities or if the complaint would clearly be dismissed on other grounds. Id. at 642. … “Claims under 23 section 52.1 may be brought against public officials who are alleged to interfere with protected 24 rights, and qualified immunity is not available for those claims.” Reese v.

Howell v. Cook

District 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

Fresno Motors, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

852 F. Supp. 2d 1280 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 27, 2012

This is all clearly provided for in the Acknowledgment [Agree *1313 ment] which is attached for convenience .... … That is clearly inconsistent with the terms of the documents, and any assignment without the benefit of a full guaranty is ineffective under the APA as assumed by MBUSA. (Nelson Decl., Exh. S.)

Lorenz v. Shepard

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 12, 2023

Such allegations are 3 insufficient to establish liability over a supervisor. Sullivan v. Biter, 2017 WL 1540256, at *1 4 (E.D. Cal. … The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly 24 titled “First Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original

(PC) Green v. Batchelor

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 14, 2022

Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment, 18 arguing that plaintiff cannot establish a First Amendment violation. ECF No. 41. … Defendant 19 argues in the alternative that she is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.

(PC) Martinez v. San Juan

District Court, E.D. California · May 6, 2021

(ECF No. 8 at 7). 23 “To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) [he] is a 24 qualified individual with a disability; (2) [he] was excluded from participation in or otherwise … Title II only prohibits discrimination 4 against “qualified” people with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (defining a qualified person with a disability as a person who “meets the essential 5

Navong v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 25, 2023

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 9 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 10 appropriate markings in the margins).A Party … If only a portion 19 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must 20 clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 21 margins

(PS) Mehl v. Countrywide Bank, NA

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 31, 2020

statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the 20 action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 21 or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 26 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless.

(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) Porter v. Camacho

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 25, 2023

If only a portion of the 26 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 27 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 28 A Party … If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies 9 for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by 10 making appropriate markings in the margins).

Trotsiouk

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 9, 2025

In 2 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 3 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 4 construes those allegations in the … “In order 24 to establish municipal liability [under Monell], a plaintiff must show that a ‘policy or 25 custom’ led to the plaintiff’s injury.” Castro v.

(PS) Murphy v. Witbeck

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 7, 2025

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 … Plaintiff does not clearly allege that there was a contract, or in what 10 manner it was breached. Plaintiff’s third count fails to state a claim of negligence. See Cisco 11 Systems, Inc. v.

Willis v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

250 F. Supp. 3d 628 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 5, 2017

Under Lueras, this allegation is insufficient to establish defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care. Accordingly, the court must dismiss plaintiffs second cause of action. … Plaintiffs complaint clearly stated only two causes of action for negligence and violation of California Civil Code § 2923.6(c)-(d); it does not include a cause of action under California Civil Code § 2923.7.

Dominguez

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

17 immunity because they did not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and their conduct was 18 objectively reasonable. … The Remaining Argument 14 The Court will not address Defendants’ argument that they are entitled to qualified 15 | immunity because it has determined Defendants are entitled to judgment on the merits as 16 |

H. v. United States

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 24, 2021

from suit unless it waives such immunity.” … 21 negligent maintenance claim, and that the discretionary function exception therefore applies here. 22 See Valdez, 56 F.3d at 1179–80 (concluding that NPS decisions concerning national park trail 23 maintenance “clearly