Case law

Regan v. City of Fresno

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 18, 2024

immunity because the case law in existence at the time of the relevant conduct did not make it clear that such conduct would violate the constitution. 26 Martinez v. … Rather, the record clearly indicates that Ramirez— 13 high on methamphetamine and with a history of domestic violence— independently decided to attack plaintiff on October 8, 2005. 14

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

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).

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.

(PC) Harper v. Farhat

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 27, 2024

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 3 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 4 490 U.S. at 327. … So, for deliberate indifference to be 10 established, there must be a purposeful act or failure to act on the part of the defendant and 11 resulting harm. Simmons v. G. Arnett, 47 F.4th 927, 933 (9th Cir. 2022).

(PS) Jones v. Velocity Technology Solutions

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

Instead, the employee need only notify the employer that leave is sought for a 13 qualifying reason. 29 U.S.C. § 825.302(c); Price v. … The amended complaint shall clearly set forth the 11 allegations against each defendant and shall specify a basis for this court’s subject matter 12 jurisdiction.

MetroLink

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 10, 2026

forma pauperis 2 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to 3 state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a 4 defendant who is immune … In 7 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 8 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 9 construes those allegations in the

(PC) Rabb v. Figueroa

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 10, 2023

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 1 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 2 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … This 10 provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery 11 order that provides for production without prior privilege review.

Yukensy Rodriguez Gonzalez v. Merrick Garland, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 19, 2026

“The burden is on the ‘next friend’ 7 clearly to establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.” … Llano qualifies for next-friend status, which would permit him to 4 initiate the instant petition on behalf of his wife, it does not allow Mr. Llano to prosecute this 5 action pro se on Petitioner’s behalf.

In Re Petition for Naturalization of Matz

296 F. Supp. 927 · District Court, E.D. California · Jan 28, 1969

Because of their religious training and belief, neither petitioner is willing to vote, serve on a jury, or participate in governmental functions. 3 These cases present two legal questions: (1) Is a person, otherwise qualified … After first finding that the denial of compensation benefits clearly constituted a burden on the free exercise of appellant’s religion, the Court then stated that it must “ * * * consider whether some compelling state interest

D. B. v. City of Stockton

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

Except as otherwise provided in this Order or as 27 otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure or Discovery Material that qualifies for protection 1 under this Order must be clearly so designated before the material … If only 6 a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 7 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 8 margins).

(PC) Bradford v. Usher

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 1, 2020

immunity. … However, Plaintiff's “Rule 57 Motion” for a declaratory 4 ruling or judgment is clearly premature as the Court just issued the amended discovery and scheduling 5 order on September 23, 2020. (ECF No. 80.)

Dalan Tarasov v. Facility Director, Mesa Verde ICE Processing Facility

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 23, 2026

“The burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of his status and 9 thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.” … Tarasova qualifies for next-friend status, which would permit her to 14 initiate the instant petition, it does not allow her to prosecute this action pro se on her son’s 15 behalf. Therefore, either: (1) Ms.

(PS) White v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC

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

Co. v. 3 Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that "the district court had a duty 4 to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties 5 raised … To state a claim of employment discrimination based on 11 disability under § 12112, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that (1) they are "disabled" as 12 defined by the ADA; (2) they are a "qualified individual" as

(PS) Tanksley v. Sacramento County Police Dept.

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

IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 25 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … It needs to be written clearly so that the court and all parties can read it.

(PC)Cannon v. Gallahger

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 2022

In the alternative, all Defendants assert they 3 are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity 20 Defendants also raise the defense of qualified immunity. (Doc. No. 70-2 at 18-20; Doc. 21 No. 86 at 8-11).

Willis v. City of Bakersfield

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

See id. at ¶¶ 25, 26. 17 These allegations do not clearly indicate when Willis was actually arrested. … Further, because the individual officers 7 are immune under § 821.6, the City is entitled to derivative immunity. See Cal. Gov.