Case law

(PS) Tanksley v. Inman

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 23, 2020

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) Montano v. Small Business Administration

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

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.

(HC) Jones v. Warden

District Court, E.D. California · May 2, 2023

Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). 12 In this case, petitioner is clearly challenging the legality of his sentence. … Petitioner Does Not Qualify for the Actual Innocence “Escape Hatch” 10 In Allen v.

(PS) Mehl v. Countrywide Bank, NA

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 5, 2020

statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the 24 action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 25 or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 2 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless.

Macias v. City of Delano

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 3, 2020

The parties’ designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 23 CONFIDENTIAL does not — without the submission of evidence by declaration, 24 establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies … If only a portion or 24 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 25 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 26 markings in the margins

(PC) Kruse v. Fisher, Jr.

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 27, 2020

Defendant also argues, in the alternative, that 22 he is entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 5-8). 23 B. … His 16 symptoms were being monitored according to established CDCR protocols. He was never told 17 that he qualified for immediate treatment yet failed to receive directed treatment.

(PS) Rogers v. Eastern Indians

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 26, 2024

forma pauperis 23 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to 24 state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a 25 defendant who is immune … In 2 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 3 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 4 construes those allegations in the

(PS) Tobey v. Schmitt

District Court, E.D. California · May 8, 2020

at any 23 time if it determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or 24 malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against 25 an immune … 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

(PC) McCraven v. Shannon

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 8, 2023

By establishing the existence of a serious medical need, a prisoner satisfies the 27 objective requirement for proving an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer v. … Plaintiff is advised that in an amended complaint she must clearly identify each 12 defendant and the action that defendant took that violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

(PC) Clouse v. Amador County Jail Medical

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 13, 2023

By establishing the existence of a serious medical need, a prisoner satisfies the 19 objective requirement for proving an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer v. … Plaintiff is advised that in an amended 23 complaint he must clearly identify each defendant and the action that defendant took that violated 24 his constitutional rights.

Johnson v. California Forensic Medical Group, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 4, 2019

If only a portion or 23 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 24 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 6 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate 7 markings in the margins).

(PC) Hernandez v. Weiss

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 31, 2023

ECF No. 49 at 2-3. 1 alternative, defendant argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … I decline to reach defendant’s alternative 17 argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity. 18 Conclusion 19 Based on the foregoing

Wilson v. City Of Fresno

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 15, 2021

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

CDCR

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 3, 2026

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 … The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 13 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 14 490 U.S. at 327.

(PC) Hodge v. Lynch

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 22, 2024

“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 12 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … It is well established that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the 1 interests of a class. See McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286 (9th Cir. 1966).

Kirkham v. City of Fresno

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 24, 2023

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, 12 the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must 24 clearly identify the protected

(PC) Lear v. Navarro

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 2, 2021

To 21 establish a failure to protect claim, the prisoner must establish that prison officials were 22 deliberately indifferent to a sufficiently serious threat to the prisoner's safety. Farmer v. … The Eighth 16 Amendment right to food was clearly established as of at least 2001. Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 17 807, 815 (9th Cir. 2009).

(PC) Rodriguez v. Taiarol

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

Put another way, the Plaintiff must establish that the remaining information in 9 the affidavit is insufficient to establish probable cause.’” Kastis v. … Plaintiff is 25 advised that in an amended complaint he must clearly identify each defendant and the action that 26 defendant took that violated his constitutional rights.

(PS) Talent v. Dept. of Homeland Security

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 4, 2024

forma pauperis 23 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to 24 state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a 25 defendant who is immune … In 2 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 3 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 4 construes those allegations in the

(HC) Mairena v. Jones

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 13, 2025

“Under AEDPA, 19 even clearly erroneous admissions of evidence that render a trial fundamentally unfair may not 20 permit the grant of federal habeas relief if not forbidden by ‘clearly established Federal law,’ as 21 … Urquiza’s testimony was not contrary to, or an 2 unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court authority. 3 Even putting aside the issue of clearly established federal law, petitioner has not shown