Case law

Estate of Linda Miller v. County of Sutter

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 2, 2020

HIG writes 17 policies, establishes practices and standards and manages Wellpath’s finances. See id. … App’x 609, 612 (9th Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (rejecting immunity claims under 21 section 856 in similar circumstances); see also Tarasoff v.

R & M Innovations LLC v. Alliance Sales & Marketing MW, Inc. and Does 1 to 20; Bright People Foods, Inc., DBA Dr. McDougall’s Right Foods v. Alliance Sales & Marketing MW, Inc. and Does 1 to 20

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

Section 19 read this way operates as a forfeiture clause, which 17 California courts “have rather consistently held [are] not 18 favored in contract law and . . . should be explicitly and 19 clearly … Causation 17 Alliance alternatively argues that plaintiffs cannot 18 establish that any purported breach by Alliance caused their 19 losses.

Courll v. Weinberger

393 F. Supp. 1033 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 15, 1975

. § 405 (g), which establishes judicial review by the district courts of final decisions by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. … When traditional concepts of res judicata do not work well, they should be relaxed- or qualified to prevent injustice. 2 Davis, Administrative Law § 18.03 (1958).

(PC) Beaton v. Valley State Prison

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 14, 2020

To 25 state a cognizable retaliation claim, Plaintiff must establish a nexus between the retaliatory act and the 26 protected activity. Grenning v. Klemme, 34 F.Supp.3d 1144, 1153 (E.D. … In any amended complaint Plaintiff files, he 7 must clearly and legibly state the relief he seeks. 8 IV. 9

(PC) Dunham v. Mohyuddin

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 29, 2025

To qualify, a disability must limit the ability of an individual to 22 perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population. See Shields 23 v. … See ECF No. 23 at 2. 23 In reply, Defendants argue Plaintiff fails to adequately support his opposition to 24 dismissal of his ADA claim, nor can he because “[w]ell established law makes clear that Title II

J. Jesus Ramos Rodriguez v. Maria Xochitl Mejia Torres, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 12, 2025

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

(PC) Davis v. Grase

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 13, 2019

Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate 2 indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v. … To establish a conspiracy, 23 Plaintiff allege specific facts showing “an agreement or meeting of the minds to violate 24 constitutional rights.

(PC) Rodriguez v. Solano State Prison

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 8, 2022

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where 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. … By establishing the existence of a serious medical need, a prisoner satisfies the 7 objective requirement for proving an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer v.

Romero v. Tribune Media Co.

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

Plaintiff alleges he was otherwise qualified to do his job. … ECF No. 15 at 4:9, 6:20, 7:21, 8:12, 9:4, 11:8, 13:1. 25 Plaintiff clearly identifies that he requested a reasonable accommodation “in the form of an 26 unpaid leave of absence from work.” Id. at 11.

(PC) Wilbanks v. Tappen

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 9, 2021

or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 26 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 27 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.

Tafoya v. City of Hanford

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 21, 2020

portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 26 legally “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or 27 that “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Even if a law enforcement officer 16 uses excessive force in violation of a citizen’s Fourth Amendment rights, the officer will still be 17 entitled to qualified immunity unless clearly established law provides that the

(PC)Sierra v. Patterson

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 9, 2024

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 15 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 16 490 U.S. at 327. … In order to state a claim for the denial of court 21 access, a prisoner must establish that he suffered an actual injury. Id. at 349.

(PC) Castro v. Covello

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 30, 2025

Plaintiff asserts that the fact that he had to file two separate 12 lawsuits based on ongoing violations, establishes an ongoing pattern. Id. … “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 4 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v.

(PC) Yakini D. Byrd v. Razo

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 17, 2020

As a basic 21 matter, the complaint does not clearly state what happened, when it happened or who was 22 involved. … “The 16 Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects persons against deprivations of life, 17 liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must establish that 18 one of these interests

Prince Paul Raymond Williams v. Professional Courier and Newspaper Distribution, d/b/a Brandt Brothers, et. al.

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

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 19 Plaintiff bears the burden of clearly satisfying all four prongs. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. 20 Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). … HIE Holdings, Inc., 908 F.3d 428, 18 433 (9th Cir. 2018) (“To set forth a prima facie disability discrimination claim, a plaintiff must 19 establish that: (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is qualified

Chestnut

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 25, 2026

had a reasonable basis in both law and fact because the 12 agency re-detained him in violation of his constitutionally protected liberty interest in his 13 continued freedom, and this detention was in violation of his clearly … established right to due 14 process.

Orion Wine Imports, LLC v. Appelsmith

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 21, 2020

The 21 court also granted plaintiffs leave to amend their Privileges and Immunities claim to establish 22 Creighton’s standing as an individual with an injury distinct from that alleged by Orion, if 23 possible. … “Where, 13 as here, a case is at the pleading stage, the plaintiff must ‘clearly . . . allege facts demonstrating’ 14 each element.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Warth v.

(PC) Johnson v. Unknown FBI Agents

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 9, 2024

The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless 3 legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. … Therefore, the FAC fails to 4 establish the court’s jurisdiction over a negligence claim under the FTCA.

(PS) Gilbert v. Clear Recon Corp

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 17, 2025

Conclusory allegations are 7 insufficient to establish state action. See Dietrich v. … “The existence of a duty of care owed by a defendant to a plaintiff is a 26 prerequisite to establishing a claim for negligence.” Nymark, 231 Cal.App.3d at 1095.

United States v. Tomison

969 F. Supp. 587 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 30, 1997

which failed to recognize ambiguities, place an undue emphasis on curtailing discovery abuses without acknowledging the ability of courts to enforce the standards without participation from the government, and/or apply qualified … It is also established that “fact-finding which pertains to legal advice counts as ‘professional legal services’ ”. United States v. Rowe, 96 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir.1996).