Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
0.94s
District Court, E.D. California · Oct 16, 2024
“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 28 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Plaintiff’s injury to his foot also does not 22 establish that he suffered medical effects, as the injury was due to plaintiff kicking the door, not 23 from the denial of outdoor exercise.
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 · 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 timesUnknown(PC) Penn v. Warden of Kern Valley State Prison
District Court, E.D. California · Jul 8, 2021
The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based 9 on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. 10 Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … , but are not 14 limited to, quasi-judicial immunity, sovereign immunity, or qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknown624 F. Supp. 2d 1153 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 2008
The language used by Plaintiffs is highly qualified and non-specific. … The Defendants appear to agree that all employment conditions communicated by the employer to the employee qualify as working arrangements. See Doc. 128, D.M.
Cited 6 timesPublished(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 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 8, 2023
Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required 9 of in forma pauperis proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. 10 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court … The 3 amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First Amended Complaint,” refer to the 4 appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury.
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 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 27, 2024
“Mere negligence is not 9 sufficient to establish liability.” Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). 10 IV. … Plaintiff was also 22 informed in the August 1, 2024 screening order that negligence is insufficient to establish 23 liability. (ECF No. 4 at 6.)
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 26, 2023
at 12–13.) 11 However, the Magistrate Judge found that Gordon II’s “recognition of a 12 Fourteenth Amendment due process right to direct-view safety checks for all pretrial 13 detainees in the qualified … immunity context does not abrogate the fundamental 14 pleading requirements for stating a claim for deliberate indifference under the Eight 15 Amendment.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 10, 2025
identify any cognizable claims and 26 dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 27 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Additionally, while plaintiff seeks to bring his complaint as a class 16 action, he is not qualified to do so. See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Van Den Heuvel v. Dorothy
District Court, E.D. California · Sep 2, 2022
On August 15, 2022, plaintiff finally filed a document that clearly qualifies as a First 25 Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 17.) However, while the FAC qualifies in form, it fails 26 in substance. … IFP statute, federal courts must screen IFP complaints and dismiss the case 4 if the action is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or 5 seeks monetary relief against an immune
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Nov 16, 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 … Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 4 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that “the district court had a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction 5 over [an] action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not
Cited 0 timesUnknownBaker v. CA School Employees Assoc.
District Court, E.D. California · Feb 19, 2025
No. 13 at 33–34.) 5 “California school districts . . . remain arms of the state and continue to enjoy Eleventh 6 Amendment immunity.” Sato v. Orange Cnty. … All of plaintiff’s claims are clearly foreclosed by 14 binding Ninth Circuit authority, as described above.
Cited 0 timesUnknownYellowCake, Inc. v. DashGo, Inc.
District Court, E.D. California · Aug 17, 2022
If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, 8 the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected … This includes a restriction 2 against presenting the information to the court for a determination of the claim. 3 This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure may be established in an e- 4 discovery
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 15, 2025
In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 16 court will (1) accept as true all the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are 17 clearly baseless or fanciful; (2) construe those allegations … Plaintiff, a citizen 25 of California, fails to establish that none of the listed Defendants are citizens of California.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 9, 2022
Dwyer must prove, among other things, that “she is a qualified individual 5 with a disability.” Lovell v. … Dwyer has established or could establish the 2 remaining elements of her claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Nor does the court 3 consider now whether Ms.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 29, 2021
“To establish a violation of the right of access to the courts, a prisoner must establish that he or she has suffered an actual 28 injury.” Nevada Dep't of Corr. v. … with final authority to establish that policy.”
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna