Case law

(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.

Ahn v. GEO Group, Inc.

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

placed in an “isolated 5 confinement setting,” the detainee must “receive continuous one-to-one monitoring, welfare 6 checks at least every 8 hours conducted by clinical staff, and daily mental health treatment by a 7 qualified … Jakubowski, 241 Cal.App.4th 848, 855 (2015). 26 Plaintiff cannot establish that Defendants’ confinement of Mr. Ahn was “without lawful 27 privilege.”

Lopes v. Vieira

488 F. Supp. 2d 1000 · District Court, E.D. California · May 30, 2007

In 1987, the State of California established the Milk Producers Trust Fund to provide protection to dairy farmers like Plaintiffs. … Immunities and other affirmative defenses may be upheld on a motion to dismiss only when they are established on the face of the complaint. See Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir.1999); Jablon v.

Frazier v. Ulta Beauty Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 10, 2021

If only a portion or portions of the material on 14 || a page qualifies for 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 the 25 || material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 26 || portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins)

(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.

Hyphy Music, Inc. v. Yellowcake, Inc.

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

Except as otherwise provided in this Order 21 (see, e.g., section 6.2(b) below), or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure or Discovery 22 Material that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 15 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by 16 making appropriate markings in the margins

(PC) McDermott v. San Joaquin County Sheriff

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

or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims 15 that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 16 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Unit, 507 U.S. 8 163, 166 (1993); Monell, 436 U.S. at 694. 9 The complaint contains no factual allegations showing that plaintiff’s rights were violated 10 based on an established policy

(PC) Lewis v. Alison

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 7, 2023

Cal.) 4 On August 7, 2019, the district court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s 5 amended complaint on the grounds of qualified immunity and the failure to state a prima facie 6 RLUIPA claim. … King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). 16 Because defendant has only established that plaintiff has brought one prior civil action 17 that counts as a strike, the undersigned recommends denying the motion to

Buenrostro-Briano v. Locke

District Court, E.D. California · May 21, 2020

If only a portion or 20 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 21 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … Challenging Party may proceed to the next stage of the challenge process only if it has engaged in this meet and confer process first or 23 establishes

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).

(HC) Wilson v. Sherman

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 1, 2021

To pass initial screening under Rule 4, petitioner must allege a violation of 3 “clearly established federal law”—meaning a violation of a U.S. Supreme Court holding. See 4 White v. … McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991). 6 Here, Wilson exclusively disputes the state court’s interpretation of its own state law. 7 Petitioner has not alleged any violation of a clearly established federal law.

Leo B. Turner, Jr. v. Yolo Police Department, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 22, 2025

. § 1915(e)(2) and found the complaint was deficient in that it was vague and unclear 1 and did not clearly state how Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated. ECF No. 3 at 4. … Limited delays and the pendency of a lawsuit are 19 insufficient to establish prejudice. Id.

Dahlin v. Frieborn

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

App. 4th 1205, 1211, 34 Cal. 26 Rptr. 2d 319 (1994) (explaining that “the section clearly extends to proceedings which were not initiated out of a 27 malicious intent … “Under California law, a well- 2 pleaded constitutional violation serves to establish the breach of a defendant’s duty of 3 care for negligence purposes.” Green v.

(PC) Jacques v. Weiss

District Court, E.D. California · May 21, 2024

By establishing the existence of a serious medical need, a prisoner satisfies the 22 objective requirement for proving an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer v. … Plaintiff is advised that in an amended complaint, she 24 must clearly identify each defendant and the action that defendant took that violated her 25 constitutional rights.

(PC) Smith v. Allison

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 28, 2022

“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 12 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989)] establishes that the State and 4 arms of the State, which have traditionally enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity, are not 5 subject to suit under § 1983 in either federal court

(PC) Britt v. Placer County Jail

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

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 21 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 22 490 U.S. at 327. … As such, the currently 3 alleged facts are insufficient to establish deliberate indifference by the defendants.

Diane Kerr v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

. §§ 404.1520 (a)-(f) and 416.920(a)-(f). 8 9 To qualify for benefits, the claimant must establish the inability to engage in 10 … testimony as follows: 13 The claimant alleged that she was disabled due to long-term effects of COVID, hemangioma for intracranial space, hypothyroidism (low 14 thyroid), and auto immune

(HC) Hurtadodominguez v. United States

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 18, 2025

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raises claims that are frivolous or 28 malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant 1 who is immune … Petitioner has 2 not established that he has a clear right to the relief requested or that any of the Respondents have a clear 3 duty to act in this case.

United States v. Crisp

190 F.R.D. 546 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 3, 1999

If the motion is filed in a timely manner, the court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s ruling under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A); Local Rule 72-303(f). B. … To establish relevance, Defendants simply offer their opinions about Agent Appleton.

Blink v. Kern High School District

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 26, 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 the material on a page qualifies for 25 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 26 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).