Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
2.10s
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 3, 2020
If only a portion or portions 23 of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 24 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins) and … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, 8 the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 9 markings in the margins) and must
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 28, 2020
The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 9 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. … alleging, among other things, that defendants 1 have falsely claimed to possess an instrument evidencing defendants’ right to foreclose on the 2 property, that defendants refuse to acknowledge that no evidence exists establishing
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 29, 2024
The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless 9 legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. … deprivations occurred because of circumstances that did not 22 constitute an established procedure.
Cited 0 timesUnknownWelch v. County of Tulare, California
District Court, E.D. California · Aug 3, 2023
If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 2 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 3 by making appropriate markings in the margins. … If only a 13 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 14 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 15 appropriate markings in the margins
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Van den Heuvel v. Costello
District Court, E.D. California · Apr 21, 2023
Under the IFP statute, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss any 22 claims that are “frivolous or malicious,” fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or 23 seek monetary relief against an immune … If 1 plaintiff wishes to bring a negligence claim alongside any federal claim, plaintiff must clearly 2 include coherent facts for each of the negligence elements provided under the Statement of Claim 3 section (see
Cited 0 timesUnknownNegrete v. Amazon.com Services LLC
District Court, E.D. California · Jul 26, 2023
If only a portion 28 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 margins). 2 … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 10 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 11 appropriate markings in the margins).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 23, 2022
Plaintiff has not alleged facts that establish defendants had 17 the requisite knowledge to state such a claim. … This is an allegation that could serve to establish 27 knowledge of the leaks.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 22, 2025
Second, as a state prisoner, plaintiff was qualified to access the 4 ASU yard and participate in activities there. See Yeskey, 524 U.S. at 210. … A 26 showing of merely negligent medical care is not enough to establish a constitutional violation. 27 Frost v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Davis v. ACEF- Martin Folsom LLC.
District Court, E.D. California · Dec 11, 2024
that a court shall dismiss a case at any time if it determines the 23 action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 24 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 22 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 23 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Del Rosario v. Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles
District Court, E.D. California · Aug 6, 2020
As a basic matter, the 8 complaint does not clearly state what happened, when it happened or who was involved. … waive its sovereign immunity or 1 Congress abrogates it.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 21, 2020
Plaintiff’s allegations do not establish that any of the Defendants 26 acted maliciously and sadistically to harm Plaintiff. … an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 18 alleged. 19 The First Amended Complaint should be clearly
Cited 0 timesUnknown595 F. Supp. 2d 1111 · District Court, E.D. California · Jan 21, 2009
The state appellate court’s decision must be measured against these clearly established principles of federal law. … It cannot be said that the Court of Appeal’s decision was an “objectively unreasonable” application of clearly established federal law. See Williams (Terry) v.
Cited 3 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 8, 2022
Ct. 2777 (2022) (“to establish a 12 deprivation of Fourth Amendment rights, the [plaintiffs] must allege the seizure was caused by 13 state action.”). … The amended complaint should be clearly titled 18 “Second Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed 19 under penalty of perjury. 20
Cited 0 timesUnknown700 F. Supp. 2d 1225 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 24, 2010
as a matter of law that Defendants are entitled to immunity from antitrust liability alleged in the FAC. … Clearly, a $200,000 award is substantial, especially given the uncertain nature of the evidence of future damages presented at trial.
Cited 20 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 21, 2025
While short, 4 Plaintiff does not clearly state what happened, including the circumstance, when and where the 5 events happened, or who was involved. … Thus, on 5 its face, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to establish this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. 6 2.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Harding v. Correctional Health Services
District Court, E.D. California · Aug 13, 2025
In the 24 alternative, defendant Mencias argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 15-16.) 25 III. … Kiener’s education, training, and experience qualify him as 24 an expert. See Fed. R. Evid. 702.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 22, 2023
immunity 27 raised by Burnes. … Pena, 976 F.2d at 471-72; see also Lewis, 523 U.S. at 842 n.5 (“[T]he better approach to resolving cases in which the defense of qualified immunity is raised is to determine first whether the plaintiff 28 has alleged
Cited 0 timesUnknownCalifornians for Alternatives to Toxics v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service
814 F. Supp. 2d 992 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 6, 2011
The record establishes only a “moderate degree of threat for extinction” (UF # 62), and defendants have not proffered any evidence to establish that the PCT is at imminent risk if the Project does not proceed now. … Plaintiffs' CEQA claim was previously dismissed as barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. (Mem. & Order [Docket # 23], filed Oct. 29, 2010.) 4 . The background section will reference facts from three sources.
Cited 2 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 10, 2023
dismiss the complaint, or any portion 27 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … These allegations are not sufficient to establish a claim of retaliation in violation of the First 23 Amendment.
Cited 0 timesUnknownVasquez v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC
District Court, E.D. California · Oct 6, 2021
If only a portion 12 or 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). … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies 22 for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by 23 making appropriate markings in margins).
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna