Case law

(PS) Bobo v. Union Gospel Mission

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 7, 2019

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.

(PS) Bobo v. Fresno Rescue Mission

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 7, 2019

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.

(PC) Pratt v. Sacramento Protection Services

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

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 court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when 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.

Kuppinger

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 15, 2025

also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Lewis, 523 8 | U.S. 833, 841 n.5 (1998) (“[T]he better approach to resolving cases in which the defense of 9 || qualified immunity is raised is to determine first whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation 10

(PS) Charles v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 30, 2019

IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 24 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … A prima facie case of discriminatory failure to hire requires 6 a showing that: (1) plaintiff belongs to a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position; (3) 7 she was rejected despite her qualification; and

Krauss v. Walmart, Inc.

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

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 12 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., 13 by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the material 23 on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the 24 protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 25

Griffin

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 5, 2026

forma pauperis 5 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to 6 state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a 7 defendant who is immune … In 10 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 11 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 12 construes those allegations in the

(PS) Van Den Heuvel v. Musso

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 17, 2021

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court will 27 (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly 28 baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations … Accordingly, the complaint fails to 3 || establish jurisdiction and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

(PC) Brown v. United States

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 8, 2019

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 22 (1989) (judges may dismiss claims based on facts that are clearly baseless, including those 23 “describing fantastic or delusional scenarios”); Warren v. … Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations 10 omitted) (“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed 11 on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in

Railroad 1900, LLC v. City of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · May 26, 2022

immunity where relevant law was not 10 clearly established); Pauluk v. … Aug. 12, 2015) (“[Defendants’ alleged] omissions do not 10 qualify as affirmative acts.

Athwal v. County of Stanislaus

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 22, 2019

If only a portion or portions of the material 25 on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 26 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins) and … If only a portion or 11 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 12 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins) and

Debbs v. Valley Convalscent Hospital

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 21, 2022

To the extent that he is, Plaintiff must clearly state those 1 entity may only be held liable if it inflicts the injury of which a plaintiff complains through a 2 governmental policy or custom. … The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “Second Amended 19 Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 20 Alternatively, Plaintiff may

Trevino v. Golden State FC LLC

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 24, 2019

If only a portion 15 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly 16 identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). 17 … 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).

Stannard v. State Center Community College District

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

Eleventh Amendment Immunity 3 In their motion, Defendants invoke the Eleventh Amendment to argue that Defendants are 4 entitled to immunity for § 1983 claims. … Richardson was obligated to “clearly allege facts demonstrating each 7 element of standing,” including self-censorship and chilled speech.

United States v. Organic Pastures Dairy Company

708 F. Supp. 2d 1005 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 20, 2010

Because the government has established that Defendants violated §§ 331(a) and (d) of the FDCA, the government is entitled to an injunction if it also establishes a cognizable danger of recurrent violations. … According to Defendants, although “the plea agreements establish liability as a matter of law, they do not establish the penalty as a matter of law, and the drastic remedies sought by the Federal government are not warranted

Marsh v. Bank of Sierra, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · May 13, 2022

Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required 5 of in forma pauperis proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. 6 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court … The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First 25 Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty 26 of perjury.

(PS) Le v. Dwyer

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 4, 2019

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.

(PS) Auten v. County of Calaveras

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 10, 2019

IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 23 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks 24 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 11 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 12 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations

(PS) Mitchell v. U.C. Davis Senior Connections

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 3, 2025

In 15 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 16 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 17 construes those allegations in the … The Complaint also 10 fails to establish diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not state an amount in controversy 11 and Plaintiff does not establish complete diversity of citizenship.

Freed v. Methode Electronics, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 10, 2022

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page 16 qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., 17 by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 26 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 27 appropriate markings in the margins).