Case law

(PS) Halousek v. Sacramento County Sheriff

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

However, a determination that a plaintiff qualifies financially for in forma 4 pauperis status does not complete the inquiry required by the statute. … City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008)). 9 There are three ways a “policy” can be established. See Clouthier v.

Clear View Enterprises v. Beauvil

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

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 8 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 9 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 23 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 24 1

(PC) Deegan v. State of California

District Court, E.D. California · May 11, 2021

“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 12 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Because these defendants are 1 immune, they are subject to summary dismissal under 29 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Williams v. Vista

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 1, 2022

Federal courts 27 are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions, and the burden to establish the contrary 1 377 (1994). … Judicial Immunity 23 Absolute judicial immunity is afforded to judges for acts performed by the judge that 24 relate to the judicial process.

Smith v. Cordoza

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

Thus, Plaintiff's complaint does not establish diversity jurisdiction. 25 2. … Thus, Plaintiff's 13 amended complaint does not establish federal question jurisdiction. 14 IV.

(PC) Felder v. Gates

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

By establishing the existence of a serious medical need, a prisoner satisfies the 14 objective requirement for proving an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer v. … Plaintiff is advised that in an amended complaint he must clearly identify each 12 defendant and the action that defendant took that violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Massengale v. Kern County Municipality

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

A court may dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably 16 meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. … “In order to establish liability for 11 governmental entities under Monell, a plaintiff must prove ‘(1) that the plaintiff possessed a 12 constitutional right of which she was deprived; (2) that the municipality

(PC) Shaw v. Woods

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 12, 2020

In evaluating a prisoner’s 3 claim, courts consider whether “ ‘the officials act[ed] with a sufficiently culpable state of mind’ 4 and if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively ‘harmful enough’ to establish a constitutional … Plaintiff is advised that in an amended complaint he must 25 clearly identify each defendant and the action that defendant took that violated his constitutional 26 rights.

(PS) Noeldner v. United States Government

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

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.

Sacramento County Retired Employees Ass'n v. County of Sacramento

975 F. Supp. 2d 1150 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2013

Indeed, the Resolution adopting the *1164 Rules for the Retiree Health Care Benefits Program says that the Board deems it “necessary to comply with federal tax law in order to preserve the tax qualified status of the retirement … None of plaintiffs’ evidence clearly evinces the County’s intent to enter into a contract for payment of the health insurance premium subsidy in perpetuity.

(PC) McClung v. CA Board of State and Community Corrections

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

For purposes of stating a 13 conditions of confinement claim, plaintiff has alleged insufficient facts as he has failed to 14 establish deliberate indifference by the defendants. See Farmer v. … Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)). 22 Under the facts alleged, plaintiff has not established that he suffered restraints outside the normal 23 incidents of prison life.

White v. County of Sacramento

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

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 22 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 23 appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 5 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 6 margins).

Signh

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 16, 2026

He fails to clearly 26 and succinctly allege what happened, when it happened, and who was involved. … Even gross 12 negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood 13 v.

Welchen v. Bonta

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 22, 2022

Third, the 28 Ninth Circuit clearly states that “if the defendant has not had his first hearing and was not arrested 1 2022); Cal. Penal Code § 1269b(b)).) … Id. at 251–52. 12 In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not 13 establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor.

(PC) Goods v. Baughman

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 5, 2024

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 12 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 13 490 U.S. at 327. … It is well established that “inmates lack 4 a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. 5 Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v.

United States of America v. Kootstra

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 6, 2024

(Id. at 15.) 24 Defendants argue these two variables establish “Z” — an inference that fraud must have occurred. 25 (Id.) … Millennium Pharms., Inc., 852 F. 5 App’x 298 (9th Cir. 2021) (“Relator bears the burden of establishing that he qualifies as an 6 original source.”).

Romaine v. Ford Motor Company

District Court, E.D. California · May 14, 2024

Order must be clearly 27 so designated before the material is disclosed or produced. 1 (a) For information in documentary form (e.g., paper or electronic documents, but 2 excluding transcripts … This 23 provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery 24 order that provides for production without prior privilege review.

(HC) Young v. Tate

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 16, 2025

The court noted that § 2255(h) specifies the 10 two limited circumstances permitting a federal prisoner to bring a second or successive collateral 11 attack on his sentence: (1) where new evidence clearly and convincingly … two courts on the same case at the same time”). 21 Discussion and Analysis 22 Petitioner fails to provide an adequate petition for writ of habeas corpus and fails to establish

Epperson v. United States

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 17, 2023

complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to 25 dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 26 granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … He also does not clearly identify his claims, causes of 10 action, the parties, or the relief that he is seeking.

(PS) Miner v. National Aeronautics & Space Administration

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 24, 2020

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.