Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.27s
(PS) Chamberlain v. Federal Election Commission
District Court, E.D. California · Aug 29, 2024
Under the IFP statute, federal courts must screen IFP complaints and 24 dismiss any case that is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be 25 granted,” or seeks monetary relief against an immune … identifying which defendant(s) are allegedly at fault for each claim, and 26 clearly identifying what legal cause of action is being asserted.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 28, 2021
By establishing the existence of a serious medical need, a prisoner satisfies the 6 objective requirement for proving an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer v. … Plaintiff is advised that in an amended complaint he 22 must clearly identify each defendant and the action that defendant took that violated his 23 constitutional rights.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Pendarvis v. Elk Grove Self Help Housing Employees
District Court, E.D. California · May 12, 2022
forma pauperis 23 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 24 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 25 immune … Plaintiff has had two opportunities to amend, has not been able to state a claim, 20 and it clearly appears no cognizable claim can be stated on the underlying facts alleged.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 20, 2025
established.” … immunity on all of plaintiff’s 27 claims.
Cited 0 timesUnknownGuru Nanak Sikh Society of Yuba City v. County of Sutter
326 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 19, 2003
In the endeavor to establish the existence ■ of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. … S7776 (“This Act does not provide religious institutions with immunity from land use regulation, nor does it relieve religious institutions from applying for variances, special permits or exceptions, hardship approval, or
Cited 20 timesPublishedTommeraason v. Siemens Mobility, Inc.
District Court, E.D. California · Jul 20, 2022
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) (e.g., by making 26 appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 8 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the 9 margins).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 7, 2025
A plaintiff seeking a TRO must generally establish all four of the 7 following elements: (1) likely success on the merits of his underlying case; (2) he is likely to 8 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary … Specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant 25 before the adverse party can be heard in opposition
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 3, 2020
“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 28 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Plaintiff makes only conclusory assertions that the nurse was not 20 qualified to remove his boil and fails to allege facts showing that Do-Williams would have known 21 the nurse was not qualified and therefore posed
Cited 0 timesUnknown907 F. Supp. 2d 1102 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 3, 2012
In his practice, Duk utilizes treatment that qualifies as SOCE under SB 1172. (Id.) … The Ninth Circuit then explained that “[t]he communication that occurs during psychoanalysis is entitled to constitutional protection, but it is not immune from regulation.” Id. at 1054-55 .
Cited 3 timesPublishedCydney Lobb v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, E.D. California · Feb 18, 2026
established by 24 medical evidence.” … Here, the medical evidence does not clearly establish that plaintiff’s 26 headaches were not severe. The ALJ’s finding on this issue was not supported by substantial 27 evidence.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 27, 2022
To establish a violation of a prison 5 official’s duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse, the prisoner must 6 establish that prison officials were “deliberately indifferent” to serious threats … “Mere negligence is not sufficient to establish liability.” Frost 8 v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998).
Cited 0 timesUnknownJordan Braun v. St. George University School of Medicine
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 2, 2026
however, requires federal courts to dismiss such a case if the action is legally “frivolous or 12 malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from 13 a defendant who is immune … Despite this, 24 he “remains academically and professionally qualified to participate in clinical training with 25 reasonable accommodation.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 21, 2024
immunity. … immunity. 1 | purposeful act or failure to respond to plaintiffs urinary condition by defendants in this case.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 2, 2020
The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 11 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 12 490 U.S. at 327. … To establish a violation of this 12 duty, a prisoner must “show that the officials acted with deliberate indifference to threat of 13 serious harm or injury to an inmate.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 4, 2019
complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or 26 malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief 27 from a defendant who is immune … Cty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1214–15 22 (9th Cir. 2008). 23 “To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) [he] is a 24 qualified
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 30, 2025
IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 4 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 5 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … CONCLUSION 2 Plaintiff fails to state a claim and her complaint does not establish a basis for subject 3 || matter jurisdiction.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 3, 2021
See Lemire, 726 F.3d at 13 1082 (“Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious 14 medical needs.”); Wereb, 727 F. … However, again, plaintiffs have not done enough to persuade the 28 court that its prior dismissal of the deliberate indifference claim against Asman was clearly
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 9, 2020
It simply establishes the obligations of the 14 Secretary under California law. … California, 191 21 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (state agency immunity); see Franchesi v. 22 Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (arm of state immunity). 23 Finally,
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Kamilchu v. County of Sacramento
District Court, E.D. California · Jan 3, 2023
The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 25 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 26 490 U.S. at 327. … The obviousness of a risk 9 can be used to help establish defendant’s knowledge but it is not conclusive.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Bullard v. Internal Revenue Service
District Court, E.D. California · Nov 2, 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.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna