Case law

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.

Sandoval v. US Foods, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 13, 2020

pursuant to this Order, and, if such material has previously been 13 disclosed to persons not qualified pursuant to the Order, shall take reasonable … which contain information protected by the attorney- 20 client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or immunity

(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.”).

(HC) Rodriguez v. Lizzaraga

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 15, 2020

Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 121 (2009) (“it is not an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law for a state court to decline to apply a specific legal rule that has not been squarely established by this Court … Given that there is no clearly established Federal law in this instance, this Court cannot grant relief, since habeas relief is warranted only when the state court adjudication runs afoul of clearly established federal law

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.

Todd v. Dilda

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

If only a 12 portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 13 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings 14 in the margins). … This provision is not intended to modify whatever 8 procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production 9 without prior privilege review.

Starr Indemnity & Liability Ins. Co. v. Ross Island Sand & Gravel Co.

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 8, 2022

If only a portion 13 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 14 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 15 … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 23 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 24 appropriate markings in the margins).

(HC)Hayes v. Neuschmid

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 7, 2022

“Clearly Established Federal Law” 22 The phrase “clearly established Federal law” in § 2254(d)(1) refers to the “governing 23 legal principle or principles” previously articulated by the Supreme Court. … Only Supreme Court precedent may constitute “clearly established 25 Federal law,” but courts may look to circuit law “to ascertain whether…the particular point in 26 issue is clearly established by Supreme Court precedent

(PC)Riseley v. Covella

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 29, 2024

complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 26 “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 27 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless 3 legal theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v.

(PC) Goldsberry v. North Bay Regional Hospital

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 27, 2025

complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 9 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 10 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 14 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 15 490 U.S. at 327.

(PC) Bosley v. Truckee Police Department

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

As a preliminary matter, although defendants are not 7 clearly named in the first suit, it is clear that the same parties are involved. … Id. 18 “It is well established that a district court has broad discretion to control its own docket, 19 and that includes the power to dismiss duplicative claims.”

Adoma v. UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, INC.

779 F. Supp. 2d 1126 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 11, 2011

If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. … To the extent it does conflict with the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of Subsection (e)(2) or the regulations, it is clearly erroneous.

(PS) Kappia v. U.S. Department of Education

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

Aguayo Jr. v. Georgia-Pacific Corrugated LLC

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

If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for 13 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 14 appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion of the material on a page 23 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) 24 (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins).

(PS) Peacemaker v. Alegria

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.

(PS) Nguyen v. Nguyen

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 16, 2024

legally 27 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks 28 1 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 15 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 16 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations

(PS) Vitaly v. Arcade Creek Recreation Park District

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 15, 2024

IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 26 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks 27 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … In order 28 to establish liability under Monell, “a plaintiff must … establish that the local government had a 1 | deliberate policy, custom, or practice that was the moving force behind the constitutional 2 | violation

Loescher v. County of Plumas

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 13, 2024

The video clearly shows Officer Luntey followed Plaintiff’s 12 vehicle for about two minutes before pulling her over. … But courts will dismiss such unnamed defendants if discovery 13 clearly would not uncover their identities or if the complaint would clearly be 14 dismissed on other grounds. Id.

Synergy One Lending, Inc. v. Kanoff

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

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 22 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., 23 by making appropriate markings in the margins) and … This provision is not intended to 6 modify whatever procedure may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production 7 without prior privilege review.