Case law

(PC) Humphries v. Curry

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 3, 2022

complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 8 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 9 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … To show discriminatory intent, a plaintiff must establish 16 deliberate indifference by the public entity, which requires: (1) knowledge that a harm to a 17 federally protected right is substantially likely, and (2)

(PC) Torres v. Gipson

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

immunity. … immunity. 22 V.

(PS) Trifu v. Police Department

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 30, 2023

However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma 28 pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. … City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008)). 8 There are three ways a “policy” can be established.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Hodel

618 F. Supp. 848 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 3, 1985

Following the letter of the Supreme Court’s extensive teachings on the subject of standing, courts must strive to avoid the danger of immunization of agency action while at the same time ensuring that each litigant possesses … Many of these ranchers may be fully qualified to prescribe their own management practices.

(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.

Ferrell, Jr. v. DeJoy

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 11, 2022

To establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination or 9 “disparate treatment” under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that: “(1) he is a member of a 10 protected class; (2) he was qualified for his position; … Retaliation 17 To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the ADEA, as with a Title VII 18 retaliation claim, the plaintiff “must establish (1) that

(PC) Thornberry v. Schultz

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

Section 1983 does not abrogate the 28 states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 344-45 1 (1979); see also Hafer v. … To establish that a particular official acted with deliberate indifference, a 27 plaintiff must allege that the official was both aware of a particular risk or condition and failed to 28 take corrective action.

Diamond v. Walmart Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 9, 2019

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 3 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 4 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a 14 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 15 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 16 appropriate markings in the margins

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

(PS) Geiger v. County of Sacramento

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

If only a portion 18 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 19 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the material 28 on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 1 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

Thompson

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 6, 2025

Further, the allegations are minimally sufficient to establish Thompson’s deliberate 3 indifference. … Plaintiff, a double amputee, is a qualified 15 individual with a disability under both Acts.

Walter W. Wells v. County of Stanislaus

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 11, 2023

If only a portion or portions of the 27 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 28 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins) and … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, 14 the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 15 appropriate markings in the margins) and

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

Goods v. City of Bakersfield Police Department

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 28, 2019

1915(e)(2), which 27 provides the Court “shall dismiss the complaint if it is “frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim on 28 which relief may be granted; or … seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … The Court explained that “to qualify as a 24 strike for § 1915(g), a case as a whole, not just some of its individual claims, must be dismissed for a 25 qualifying reason. Id.

(PC) Denton v. Bibbs

District Court, E.D. California · May 4, 2021

for a qualifying reason under the 11 [PLRA].” … While it 22 does appear that Plaintiff did exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to the issues in his 23 Third Amended Complaint, he clearly did so after he initiated this action.”)

(PS) Jackson v. Experian

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

IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 27 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 28 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 14 Court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 15 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations

(PS) Butler v. Dozier

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 19, 2022

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.

(PS) Tanksley v. Debbie

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

Co. v. 2 Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that “the district court had a duty 3 to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties 4 raised … If 27 plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, it shall be clearly captioned “First Amended 28 Complaint” and shall cure the jurisdictional deficiencies identified above.

Maxim

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 30, 2026

Plaintiff has not provided enough factual detail about the situation to establish an Eighth 4 Amendment claim based on denial of meals. … “Retaliation against prisoners for their exercise of 14 this right is itself a constitutional violation and prohibited as a matter of ‘clearly established 15 law.’”

(PC) Clark v. Gutierrez

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 3, 2022

Plaintiff clearly expressed his 19 concerns that he believed it was an emergency situation. … April 20, 3 2006) (granting qualified immunity to defendants when prisoner slipped and fell in puddle of water resulting from leaky roof known to defendants), aff’d by 4