Case law

(PC) Matthew A. Lawrie v. Christian Pfeiffer

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 17, 2024

Supervisor Liability 14 Liability under Section 1983 cannot be established solely on the theory of respondeat 15 superior based on the unconstitutional conduct of subordinates. … Indeed, Plaintiff’s claims should be clearly stated on the form itself. The Court 24 will not review any of Plaintiff’s past supplements or pleadings in order to determine the 25 substance of Plaintiff’s claims.

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) 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

(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.

(PC) Dedmon v. Felder

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

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 25 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 26 490 U.S. at 327. … However, plaintiff has not alleged any facts 22 that establish that he has a serious medical need or that defendants acted with deliberate 23 indifference to that need. Estelle v.

Apple Hill Growers v. El Dorado Orchards, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 21, 2022

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies 2 for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 3 appropriate markings in the margins); and … If only a portion 14 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 15 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

(PC) Young v. Lynch

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 1, 2025

The court 2 may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where 3 the factual contentions are clearly baseless. … See Hudson v. 12 McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992) (“In order to establish a claim for the use of excessive force in 13 violation of the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must establish that prison officials applied force

Sousa v. TriWest Healthcare Alliance Corp.

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 29, 2020

If only a 10 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 11 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 12 margins … If only a portion or 21 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 22 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 23

(PS) Rigor v. Santa Clara County Public Defenders Office

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

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.

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).

(PC)Johnson v. Lynch

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 15, 2022

That defendants should have 12 known a risk existed cannot be used establish deliberate indifference by defendants. … Neither of these allegations establish that defendants had knowledge of a 18 risk of harm to plaintiff prior to plaintiff’s injury.

Jennifer Nicole Butler v. Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 19, 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 … An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts 23 establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a 24 causal connection between the defendant's wrongful

Nieto v. City of Visalia

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 17, 2024

If only a 9 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the 10 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by 11 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 26 clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 27 markings in the

(PC) Moore v. Hill

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 15, 2024

“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 28 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Mar. 18, 2009) (officers 7 executing search warrant entitled to qualified immunity because alleged comments that “[t]here is 8 no crack in this crack” and “I wonder if he has ever been molested” made during strip search

(PS) Rigor v. Sacramento Regional Transit

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 27, 2025

IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 10 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 11 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Plaintiff was told she “should clearly allege whether her 2008 9 conviction has been invalidated on appeal, vacated, or otherwise set aside.” ECF No. 3 at 7.

(PS) Storman v. Alta Regional Center

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 7, 2021

forma pauperis 7 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 8 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 9 immune … In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 12 court accepts as true the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly 13 baseless or fanciful, and construes them in the light most favorable

Continental Casualty Company v. Guzman

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 20, 2020

If only a portion of the material on a page 15 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 16 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion of the material on a page 25 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 26 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

Kirk Douglas Williams v. Joyy, Inc., et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 20, 2026

Under the IFP statute, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss any 23 claims that are “frivolous or malicious,” fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or 24 seek monetary relief against an immune … set forth his various claims in separate sections and clearly identify which defendants 2 are allegedly at fault for each claim (e.g., Claim

Aldredge v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 21, 2021

If only a portion or 24 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 25 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 26 … If only a portion or portions of the material on 6 a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 7 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

(PC) Iseli v. Unknown

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 9, 2025

“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 10 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Id. 25 It is well-established that prisoners have no constitutional right to a particular 26 classification. Hernandez v.