Case law

Copeland

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

Except as otherwise provided in this Order 1 Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before the 2 material is disclosed or produced. … If only a 6 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must 7 clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g. by making appropriate markings in the margins). 8

(PC) Kyle v. Los Angeles Police Department

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 10, 2019

“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 10 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Id. at 4-5. 23 The allegations in plaintiff’s complaint are delusional and do not present facts or legally 24 coherent theories of liability establishing a claim for relief.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Ching

189 F. Supp. 3d 978 · District Court, E.D. California · May 27, 2016

But a purported claimant’s status as a defendant is clearly a relevant factor; the Rund-gren court distinguished Midwest Federal Savings Bank on this basis. See id. at 1063. … Clearly the Bank realized a “gain” when it sold the branch buildings for a greater value than its bookkeeping reflected. But exchanging real estate for cash did not make the Bank wealthier.

(PC) Singanonh v. Rodriguez

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 3, 2021

Defendants also argue 5 that all defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the excessive force claim because the 6 force used was objectively reasonable and because they are entitled to qualified immunity. 7 … Plaintiff 25 also does not address Defendants’ argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity. 26 Plaintiff’s opposition is signed under penalty of perjury.

(PS) Moore v. C.F.Y. Development Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 3, 2025

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 2 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and construes 3 those allegations in the light … While deplorable, a single 27 such instance is insufficient to establish a violation of the Act.

(PC) Castellano v. Shrum

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 15, 2023

IMMUNITY 10 Defendants also assert qualified immunity. … Because defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the merits of plaintiff’s 14 claim, the court need not decide whether they are also entitled to qualified immunity. See 15 O’Brien v.

(HC) Springs v. Trate

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 27, 2023

Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). 9 In this case, petitioner is clearly challenging the legality of his conviction and sentence. 10 “As a general rule, ‘§ 2255 provides the exclusive procedural mechanism … However, petitioner does not 4 allege that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective and, as addressed below, he does not qualify for the 5 narrow escape hatch exception.

Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 18, 2020

If only a portion 10 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 11 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 for protection, the 20 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 21 markings in the margins).

Williams v. Aetna Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 1, 2022

Judicial Immunity 16 Absolute judicial immunity is afforded to judges for acts performed by the judge that 17 relate to the judicial process. … This judicial immunity 23 insulates judges from suits brought under section 1983.

(HC) Wells v. Lizarraga

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 10, 2022

Only Supreme Court precedent may constitute “clearly established 12 Federal law,” but courts may look to circuit law “to ascertain whether . . . the particular point in 13 issue is clearly established by Supreme Court … The question at this stage is whether the state court 24 reasonably applied clearly established federal law to the facts before it. Id. at 181-182.

(PC) Welk v. California Department of Corrections

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2019

22 To state a claim under Title II of the ADA, the plaintiff must allege that: 23 (1) he “is an individual with a disability;” (2) he “is otherwise qualified … Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (plaintiff seeking mandatory injunction “must 28 //// 1 establish that the law and facts clearly favor

(PC) Green v. Lacebal

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 27, 2022

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 6 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 7 490 U.S. at 327. … It is well-established that 7 inmates have a right to file grievances against correctional officers. See Watison v. Carter, 668 8 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Brodheim v.

(PS) Favis v. Mallari

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 30, 2025

forma pauperis 25 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 26 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 27 immune … To ultimately “prevail on such a claim, a plaintiff must establish a 28 ‘causal connection’ between the government defendant's ‘retaliatory animus’ and the plaintiff's 1 ‘subsequent injury.’” Hartman v.

J.F. v. City of Woodlake

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 8, 2024

If only a portion 16 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 17 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the material 26 on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 27 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

(PC) Johnson v. Unknown

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 17, 2022

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 … Plaintiff, 14 however, does not clearly allege whether he suffered serious harm because of 15 defendants’ delay in properly assigning

(PC) Davis v. Kings County Board of Supervisors

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

Claims Regarding Disability Discrimination 13 To state a claim for violation of Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 14 Act, a plaintiff must show that (1) he is a qualified … Court gave 28 leave to amend in order to allow Plaintiff to include a short and plain statement of the factual 1 || allegations that support each claim, Plaintiff's complaint is difficult to understand and does not 2 clearly

Free Spirit Organics, NAC v. San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 7, 2020

B at 32–48, ECF No. 36.4 On September 12, 4 2017, the County responded by letter, taking the position plaintiffs’ letter was non-responsive and 5 did not demonstrate they qualified as an “Established Agricultural Research … immunity. 13 See generally Mot.

Cooc v. Bureau Veritas North America Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 21, 2025

Id. at 13-17. 4 Defendants object that Plaintiff is not qualified as an expert on the identified topics and 5 cannot establish that (1) her technical or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to … As discussed during 14 the IDC, Plaintiff’s counsel’s position to the contrary is clearly wrong under the plain text of Rule 15 26(b)(4)(C) and the 2010 Advisory Committee Notes. 16 3.

Sierra Pacific Industries v. American States Insurance

883 F. Supp. 2d 967 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 1, 2012

ASIC maintains that Budra and the Biernat firm were qualified to defend Sierra, because the firm had tried a total of seventy cases to verdict, including ones in state and federal court, as well as some unspecified number … Furthermore, it is clearly established that the fact that the value of the case is in excess of the policy limits does not create a conflict of interest.

(HC)Canderlario Vargas v. James Robertson

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 23, 2024

16 . . . recent decisions”; otherwise, there is no clearly established Federal law for purposes of 17 review under AEDPA. … If no clearly established Federal law exists, the inquiry is at an 20 end and the Court must defer to the state court’s decision.