Case law

(PC) Felix v. Casey

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 7, 2023

immunity. … immunity. 22 VI.

(PC) Doe v. Johnson

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 7, 2024

established Eighth Amendment right to be free from sexual abuse.); 21 Farmer v. … Uveges, 34 Cal. 4th 915, 927 n.8 (2004) (negligence per se refers to 12 the concept of borrowing statutes “for one of two purposes: (1) to establish a duty of care, or (2) 13 to establish a standard of care” (citations

Phillips-Kerley v. City of Fresno Fire Department

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 2, 2025

The Court will 7 bar use of the evidence in question only if the moving party establishes that the evidence clearly 8 is not admissible for any valid purpose. Jonasson v. … qualified and, if so, to what extent.5 (Doc. 190 at 2.)

Sidney Ross Deegan, III v. Sacramento County et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 27, 2026

Plaintiff has not satisfactorily established a 20 connection between defendants Anderson or Bell and the alleged interference with his right to file 21 grievances by any qualifying means. … Notwithstanding pretrial detainees’ clearly established 10 right to be free from punishment, the undersigned finds that plaintiff fails to demonstrate that his 11 reduced family visitation and programming participation

(PC) Smith v. CDCR Education Department

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 24, 2021

body systems, such as: neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory 5 (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, immune … impairment, whether or not that impairment substantially limits, or is perceived to substantially limit a major life activity, even if the public entity 27 asserts, or may or does ultimately establish

(PC) Currie v. Newsom

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

or portion thereof if the prisoner has 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 … [T]hat edict contains one significant qualifier: the remedies must indeed be 18 “available” to the prisoner.

(PC) Hopson v. Kings County Jail

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 20, 2025

Lopez sounded condescending and clearly amused by Plaintiff’s 10 suffering. He repeatedly showed deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s suffering and substantial 11 risk to Plaintiff’s health. (Id. at 6). … Despite filing an amended 18 complaint, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts that would establish municipal liability.

(PC) Patton v. Denberg

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

Without additional facts, this demonstrates negligence on the part of the prison 8 officials, which is not sufficient to establish constitutional liability. … Mere 6 negligence on the part of the prison official is not sufficient to establish liability. Farmer, 511 7 U.S. at 835. 8 C.

(PC) Littleton v. Montiez

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

complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 7 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 8 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The Supreme Court has held that a private party defendant acts “under 21 color of” state law if the conduct qualifies as state action under the Fourteenth Amendment. 22 Lugar v.

Clark v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. California · May 7, 2020

Except as otherwise provided in 25 this Order, or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, Disclosure of Discovery Material 26 that qualifies for protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before 27 the … If only a portion of the 6 material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also 7 must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 8 appropriate

Lopez v. Pavestone, LLC

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 24, 2022

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 22 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 23 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 24 … If 5 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 7 appropriate markings in the margins).

London Wallace v. City of Fresno

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 16, 2020

If only a 7 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 9 appropriate markings in the margins) and … If only a 16 portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing 17 Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 18 appropriate markings in the margins) and

(PC) Leonard v. CSP Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 29, 2023

The obviousness of the risk, however, 11 may be sufficient to establish knowledge. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842; Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 12 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1995). … In an amended complaint plaintiff must clearly identify each 14 defendant and the action that defendant took that violated his constitutional rights.

Avalos-Aviles v. Red Robin International, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 21, 2023

If only a portion or 16 portions of the material on a page qualify for protection, the Producing Party must 17 clearly identify the protected portion(s) (for example, by making appropriate markings 18 in the margins … If only a portion or portions of the material 1 on a page qualify for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 2 protected portion(s) (for example, by making appropriate markings in the margins

(PS) Halousek v. CA Public Employees' Retirement System

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 1, 2024

A federal court’s jurisdiction may be established in one of two ways: actions 9 arising under federal law or those between citizens of different states in which the 10 alleged damages exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 … See Docket. 7 Though the May 17, 2023 Order concluded that “[s]ervice will not be ordered” on the 28 state, the order did not clearly dismiss the state.

Timothy M. Groux v. California Prison Industry Authority, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 10, 2026

complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 27 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 28 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 4 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 5 490 U.S. at 327.

(PS) Crenshaw v. The Arbors at Antelope

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

IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 25 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Because the complaint as written does not clearly explain what happened to you and 26 how federal laws were violated, it will not be served on defendants.

(PC) Miles v. Inguanzo

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

“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 20 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … The 26 complaint does not present plausible factual allegations or legally coherent theories of liability 27 establishing a claim for relief. See Denton v.

(PC) Jackson v. Diaz

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 26, 2019

immunity.1 ECF No. 40. … To state a claim for 19 deprivation of procedural due process, a plaintiff must first establish the existence of a liberty 20 interest for which the protection is sought. See Hewitt v.

Darrick Lowe v. San Joaquin County, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 20, 2026

“By exploiting Plaintiff’s response to their 8 knock to seize him at the threshold, Defendants violated clearly established Fourth Amendment 9 principles prohibiting warrantless in-home arrests absent exigency.” … of 23 SCRA tolling to establish the timeliness of his claims.