Case law

Alisa Razumovsky v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC

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

forma pauperis 23 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to 24 state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a 25 defendant who is immune … In 2 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 3 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 4 construes those allegations in the

(PC) Hayes v. Spencer

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 22, 2020

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably 18 meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 19 327. … Plaintiff is advised that in an amended complaint he must 5 clearly identify each defendant and the action that defendant took that violated his constitutional 6 rights.

Bonta

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 30, 2026

“The Court may ... dismiss a claim as frivolous 19 where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are 20 clearly baseless.” Howell v. … Aug. 13, 2021) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327). 22 A review of Plaintiff's complaint establishes that it contains fantastical claims.

(PC) Mitchell v. Piffer

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 20, 2019

“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 4 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Jackson v. … A deprivation of personal property is not actionable as a due 7 process claim under section 1983 where the deprivation is the result of random and unauthorized 8 action (as opposed to an established state procedure),

Nomellini Construction Co. v. United States

328 F. Supp. 1281 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 3, 1971

Under these circumstances, I cannot conclude that the creation of one narrow remedy was meant to eradicate all other established forms of relief. … At common law, Nomellini’s treatment of the liened property clearly constitutes conversion.

(PC) Garrett v. Baker

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 26, 2020

Defendants further argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. 24 at 26-28. 25 B. … immunity. 15 VII.

(PC) Borja v. Amador County

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

“[T]o be entitled to the presumption of truth,” Plaintiff must establish an 27 affirmative causal link between the municipal policy or practice and the alleged constitutional 28 violation. Starr v. … Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 565 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Noble v. 24 Adams, 636 F.3d 525, 531 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding prison officials were entitled to qualified 25 immunity from § 1983 claim that post-riot lockdown of

(HC) Hernandez v. Covello

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 22, 2024

26 . . . recent decisions”; otherwise, there is no clearly established Federal law for purposes of 27 review under AEDPA. … If no clearly established Federal law exists, the inquiry is at an 2 end and the Court must defer to the state court’s decision.

Wake

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 7, 2025

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 … Plaintiff has not established federal question 10 jurisdiction under section 1983. 11 Plaintiff further fails to state a claim as to his three federal causes of action.

O'BOSKY v. Astrue

651 F. Supp. 2d 1147 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 24, 2009

The court finds that the medical evidence does not clearly establish that plaintiffs mental impairment was a slight abnormality having no more than a minimal effect on his ability to work. … to recognize an impairment as severe when the medical evidence does not clearly establish that the impairment had no more than a minimal effect on the claimant’s ability to work at the relevant time.

Medicare

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 14, 2026

IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 6 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 7 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 21 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 22 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Norton

236 F. Supp. 3d 1198 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 23, 2017

The resulting ITS provides the applicant agency with immunity from Section 9. … Upon further review, the Court concludes this assumption runs counter to established precedent.

Michael Bruce Anthony McPherson v. Royal Family of England, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · May 7, 2026

“The Court may ... dismiss a claim as frivolous 17 where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are 18 clearly baseless.” Howell v. … Aug. 13, 2021) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327). 20 A review of Plaintiff's complaint establishes that it is frivolous because the facts alleged 21 are irrational and wholly incredible.

Otgondaataz

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

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 … In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court will 28 (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly 1 baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations

(PS) Garcia v. Robinson

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 3, 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 … AMENDING THE COMPLAINT 11 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, the amended complaint must allege facts 12 establishing the existence of federal jurisdiction.

(PS) Nguyen v. Phan

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 19, 2024

IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 27 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks 28 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 14 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 15 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations

(PC) Hawes v. California Department of Health Services

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 30, 2021

While he has stated 13 numerous grievances regarding how he has been treated, he has not clearly articulated how the 14 defendants’ actions violated his rights. … Circumstances 1 common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not 2 establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of 3 counsel

Bonta

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 29, 2026

“The Court may ... dismiss a claim as frivolous 22 | where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are 23 clearly baseless.” Howell v. … Aug. 13, 2021) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327). 25 A review of Plaintiff's complaint establishes that 1t contains fantastical claims.

(PC) West v. High Desert State Prison

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 30, 2020

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 8 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 9 490 U.S. at 327. … Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1995) (The very 22 obviousness of the risk may suffice to establish the knowledge element.).

William Frederick Goldsberry, Jr. v. North Bay Regional Hospital

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 3, 2026

P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 1 state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a 2 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) … In 5 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 6 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 7 construes those allegations in the