Case law

(PS) Johnson v. FBI

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 8, 2021

However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma 6 pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. … Moreover, the legal principles 7 applicable to a request for injunctive relief are well established.

Stanley E. Redick III v. Lowes Home Centers, LLC

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 5, 2021

Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 11 2001) (dismissal required of in forma pauperis proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune 12 defendants); Cato v. … Therefore, the one-year statute of limitations ran on November 7 10, 2019, and Plaintiff did not file the original action until January 5, 2021, which is clearly untimely. 8 2.

Gund v. County of Trinity

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 23, 2022

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 23 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 24 appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the material 6 on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 7 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

Hulet v. County of Tuolumne

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 12, 2024

a prima facie case of failure to accommodate under § 504 of the 17 Rehabilitation Act or Title II of the ADA, Hulet must establish that he “(1) is an individual with a 18 disability; (2) is otherwise qualified to participate … with care”). 14 The complaint establishes that Hulet told each of the deputies he encountered that he was 15 injured and that the deputies clearly knew he was injured.

William Alejandro Argueta-Guevara v. Tae D. Johnson, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 25, 2026

“The burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of his status and 3 thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.” … Jan. 29, 2026) 1 | (same). 2 Assuming that Evelin Argueta qualifies for next-friend status, which would permit her to 3 || initiate the instant action on behalf of petitioner William Alejandro Argueta-Guevara

(HC) Williams v. People of the State of California

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 25, 2024

Only Supreme Court precedent may constitute “clearly established 24 Federal law,” but courts may look to circuit law “to ascertain whether…the particular point in 25 issue is clearly established by Supreme Court precedent … The question at this stage is whether the state court 8 reasonably applied clearly established federal law to the facts before it. Id. at 181-182.

Debeaubien v. State of CA

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

Except as otherwise provided in this Order, or as 9 otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure or Discovery Material that qualifies for protection under 10 this Order must be clearly so designated before the material … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 18 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., 19 by making appropriate markings in the

(PC)Candler

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 6, 2025

To establish a claim for the use of excessive force in violation of the 22 Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must establish that prison officials applied force maliciously and 23 sadistically to cause harm, rather than … immunity. 1 | time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.

Giovanni Centeno Soza v. Warden of California City Detention Facility

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 29, 2026

“The burden is on the ‘next 3 friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the 4 court.” … Centeno Soza qualifies for next-friend status, which would permit him 27 to initiate the instant petition on behalf of brother, it does not allow Mr.

(PC) Matlock v. Kern County

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 29, 2023

JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT 20 The discovery and dispositive motion deadlines established by the Court’s scheduling 21 order of May 3, 2022, have lapsed. (Doc. 50.) … 25 immunity.

(PC) Jackson v. Biter

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 4, 2021

by a... policymaker possessed 19 with final authority to establish that policy.” … This judicial immunity insulates 13 judges from suits brought under section 1983. Olsen, 363 F.3d at 923.

(PC) Kitilya v. California Medical Facility

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 5, 2021

“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 12 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 25 58 (1989)] establishes that the State and arms of the State, which have traditionally enjoyed 26 Eleventh Amendment immunity, are not subject to suit under § 1983 in either federal court

Estate of Mendez v. City of Ceres

390 F. Supp. 3d 1189 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 28, 2019

Law and Analysis a. § 1983 and Monell " Section 1983 provides for liability against any person acting under color of law who deprives another 'of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' … The filing dates of the recent examples, however, span 2016-2018, and the instant events occurred in 2018, which is clearly very close in time.

(PC) Allen v. Harris

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 1, 2023

Cal. 2022). 1 which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 2 such relief. … Regulations adopted in the wake of this change 5 established a new work group F, for inmates assigned to “full-time conservation camp work,” 6 who “shall be awarded two days credit for each day of qualifying performance

Roth v. PTGMB LLC

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 26, 2020

If only a portion or 9 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 10 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 11 … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 19 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 20 appropriate markings in the margins).

Miguel Marquez Valdivia v. County of Sacramento, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · May 21, 2026

immunity. … CONCLUSION 9 A plaintiff bears the burden of proof in establishing tolling.

(PS) Rubang v. Ally Financial Inc.

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

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.

(PC) Bailey v. Mejia

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 11, 2024

(quoting 42 20 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(B)). 21 To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) [he] is a qualified individual with … Mere negligence on the part of a 22 prison official is not sufficient to establish deliberate indifference. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835. 23 2.

Wallick v. Campbell Soup Supply Company, L.L.C.

District Court, E.D. California · May 23, 2022

Except as otherwise provided in this Protective 24 Order, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, disclosure of material that qualifies for protection under this 25 Protective Order must be clearly so designated before … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies 6 for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s). 7 (b) for testimony given in deposition or in other

(PC)Weisner v. Nobert

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 1, 2023

judge who took plaintiff’s guilty plea and sentenced him, and the San Joaquin County 13 District Attorney who prosecuted him. 14 Plaintiff generally alleges that “defendants have clearly … Hawaii, 939 F.2d 23 702, 708 (9th Cir. 1991)(requiring something more than conclusory assertions of a civil 24 conspiracy between a private party and a state actor in order to establish § 1983 liability). 25 Plaintiff