Case law

Drevdahl v. City of Fairfield

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 12, 2021

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

(PC) Donaldson v. Glidewell

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 10, 2020

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably 4 meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 5 327. … Even gross negligence 15 is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference. See Wood v.

Grandell

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

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant 25 who is immune … Property in my Quitclaim Deed, in Case No. 1:26-cv- 02853-JLT-CDB. 9 This is established

Quezada v. State of California

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

Except as otherwise provided in this Order, 1 or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure or Discovery Material that qualifies for 2 protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before the material … If only a portion or portions of the 9 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 10 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins) and

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

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 12, 2020

Clearly, he blames her for its occurrence, but 15 nothing in the complaint, taken as true, establishes that she orchestrated the attack or knew that it 16 was likely to happen. … But no defendant is clearly implicated in this revocation.

Mack v. City of Sacramento

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

If 13 only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 14 Party also must clearly identify the protected portions(s). 15 A Party or Non-Party that makes original … If only a portion 23 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must 24 clearly identify the protected portions(s). 25 (b) For testimony

Monterrosa v. City of Vallejo

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 16, 2020

If only 11 a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 12 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 13 … If only a portion or 22 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). 24

Dailey v. LinkUs Enterprises, LLC

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 9, 2021

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 … This 17 provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery 18 order that provides for production without prior privilege review.

Barnhart v. California Physicians' Service

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

If only a portion or portions of the 19 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 20 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 21 … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 3 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 4 markings in the margins).

(PS) Aderholt v. Edwards

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

However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma 1 pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. … Under this standard, a court must dismiss a 18 complaint as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the 19 factual contentions are clearly baseless.

Gottlieb

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 3, 2026

In 8 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 9 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 10 construes those allegations in the … Moreover, the Complaint also fails to establish diversity 24 jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not allege any amount in controversy or establish complete 25 diversity of citizenship. See Morris v.

(PS) McGuire v. Roseville Joint Union High School District

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

Defendants move to dismiss the first amended complaint for failure to state a claim 26 and on the basis of qualified immunity. ECF No. 25. … The 4 complaint does not establish diversity of citizenship, and plaintiffs have not alleged a cognizable 5 federal claim. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332; see also Bautista v. Pan Am.

Rosendo Gonzalez Jr. v. Newrez LLC

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 17, 2026

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court will 1 (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly 2 baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations … However, “[i]t is well established that the privilege to represent oneself pro se 10 provided by § 1654 is personal to the litigant and does not extend to other parties or entities.” 11 Simon v.

Loui v. Gideon Contracting, LLC

District Court, E.D. California · May 1, 2024

Except as otherwise provided in this Order (see, 1 Discovery Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before 2 the material is disclosed or produced. … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 18 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 19 markings in the margins).

Villarreal-Lopez

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 28, 2026

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

Houston v. City of Fairfield

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 2, 2022

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

Frazer v. Lowe's Homes Centers, LLC

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 17, 2023

If only a portion or portions of the material 19 on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 20 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 21 … This provision is not intended to modify 8 whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for 9 production without prior privilege review.

(PS) Harris v. Medical Board of California

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

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court will 28 (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly 1 baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations … These facts do not and cannot establish a 2 violation of any federal law of which the court is aware.

(PC) Mills v. Justice Center Detention Facility

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 30, 2023

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 17 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 18 490 U.S. at 327. … “‘Omissions or misstatements resulting from negligence 23 or good faith mistakes will not invalidate an affidavit which on its face establishes probable 24 cause.’” Ewing v.

(PC) Mundy v. Cavello

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 7, 2024

“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 11 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Sovereign Immunity 19 Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against the CDCR, MCSP, CALPIA, and CCHCS are barred by 20 sovereign immunity because they are arms of the state.