Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.57s
District Court, E.D. California · Jan 10, 2023
This allegation does not establish the kind of “wantonness” required to state an Eighth 3 Amendment claim. … Because the complaint as written does not clearly tell the court what 15 was done to you, by whom and when, the court cannot tell if you are able to make any legal 16 claims.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 15, 2025
As noted above, “[w]here the plaintiff contends that an 10 employer failed to accommodate by reassigning him or her to another position, ‘the plaintiff 11 proves he or she is a qualified individual by establishing that … In its reply, KAG West, citing Estrada’s initial 9 application to work at KAG West, asserts that Estrada’s work experience at IKEA does not 10 establish that Estrada was qualified to be a commercial vehicle dispatcher
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 22, 2024
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.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 4, 2023
Clearly baseless factual 17 allegations include those “that are ‘fanciful,’ ‘fantastic,’ and ‘delusional.’ ” Denton, 504 U.S. at 18 32–33 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 32–28). … Regardless of whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, a dismissal for failure to state a claim qualifies as a 28 strike under § 1915(g). Lomax, 140 S.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 23, 2023
If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 14 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 15 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of 25 the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 26 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 27
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 20, 2023
Ct. 1843 (2017), this Court cannot 11 create an individual damages remedy in this new context;” 2) The complaint fails to state a 12 claim; and 3) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … (ECF No. 62). 8 Plaintiff argues that his complaint does not fail to state a claim (id. at 7-9 & 19-20) and 9 appears to argue that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity (id. at 9-10 & 21). 10
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 10, 2023
a ... policymaker possessed 25 with final authority to establish that policy.” … “An authorized deprivation is one carried out pursuant to established 25 state procedures, regulations, or statutes.” Id. (citing Logan v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownBruce Morris v. Sierra County Clerk’s Office, et al.
District Court, E.D. California · Apr 8, 2026
The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 11 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 12 490 U.S. at 327. … An individual defendant is not liable on a civil 11 rights claim unless the facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional 12 deprivation or a causal connection between the defendant’s wrongful
Cited 0 timesUnknownGuerra v. Madera Police Department
District Court, E.D. California · Oct 21, 2024
The Court must dismiss a case that is frivolous or malicious, fails to 4 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii … The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly 18 titled “First Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed 19 under penalty of perjury.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 28, 2020
P. 10 26(b)(2)(C). 11 “The party seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that its request 12 satisfies the relevancy requirements of … qualify under CDCR’s Hepatitis C 17 Guidelines.
Cited 0 timesUnknownLarry James Brookshire v. Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, et al.
District Court, E.D. California · Aug 13, 2026
App’x 701, 703 n.3 16 (9th Cir. 2002). 17 In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not 18 establish a material … See id. 1 | VII QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 2 In light of the above findings recommending that defendants be granted summary 3 || judgment, the Court need not address defendants’ qualified immunity arguments. 4 |
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 24, 2022
complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 9 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 10 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Pursuant to the RA, “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a 24 disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 23, 2025
complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 9 “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 10 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 14 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 21, 2020
Mere negligence on the 14 part of a prison official is not sufficient to establish liability, but rather, the official's conduct must 15 have been wanton. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835; Frost v. … April 20, 2006) 28 (granting qualified immunity to defendants when prisoner slipped and fell in 1 puddle of water resulting from leaky roof known to defendants), aff'd by 2008 WL 686740 (9th Cir.
Cited 0 timesUnknownTravelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. LK Transportation, Inc.
3 F. Supp. 3d 799 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 13, 2014
Thus, use of an auto for the insured’s business purposes must be exclusive to establish that the auto has been “hired.” … When interpreting the terms of a contract and applying established case law, fairness and impartiality are the beacons of light that guide the Court.
Cited 1 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Nov 12, 2020
Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate 16 indifference to serious medical needs. SeeWood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 17 1990). … To establish a claim of deliberate indifference arising from a delay in providing care, a 21 plaintiff must show that the delay was harmful. SeeBerry v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 1, 2025
Gu additionally asserts that he is entitled 21 to qualified immunity. … Gu is not entitled to qualified immunity. (Id.) 5 Third, Dr.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Grissom v. Modesto Police Department
District Court, E.D. California · Feb 11, 2022
City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 27 5 The Courtwill dismiss such unnamed defendants if discovery clearly would not uncover their identities or if the 28 complaint would clearly be dismissed on other grounds. … California, 384 18 U.S. 757, 769–71 (1966)). 19 “It is clearly established that an officer may not conduct a ‘search incident to citation’ absent 20 other justification.” Sameth v. Cnty. of L.A., No.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Nov 29, 2021
If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 14 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 15 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a 25 portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 26 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings 27 in the margins).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 24, 2021
Of the three documents at issue, the 2 August 28, 2015, subpoena issued by the Butte County Superior Court commanding Duran’s 3 attendance at a September 9, 2015, hearing is clearly a “legal paper related to a court case … Defendant is 8 | immunized from liability and entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 9 10 IV.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna