Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.02s
District Court, E.D. California · Feb 1, 2021
Plaintiff has been housed at 4 SATF on the F-Yard, a level 2 Special Needs Yard reserved for inmates who, because of their 5 lack of disciplinary problems, qualify to be housed there. … Hardin, 223 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2000) 26 (recognizing the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity “for prospective 27 declaratory and injunctive relief against state officers, sued in their official
Cited 0 timesUnknown301 F.R.D. 493 · District Court, E.D. California · Feb 21, 2014
Review of Case Law Presented by Defendants Clearly, the Wal-Mart decision is a primary impetus and basis for Defendants’ motions for decertification. … That alone establishes commonality for the subclass.
Cited 28 timesPublishedRandy Lee Scroggins v. Steve Smith
District Court, E.D. California · Oct 14, 2025
Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 98-99 21 (2011). 22 Under 2254(d)(1), a decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if the state 23 court either … 15 Ultimately, Petitioner has not shown that the state appellate court’s rejection of his 16 confrontation and due process claims was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly 17 established federal
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 9, 2025
forma pauperis 3 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to 4 state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a 5 defendant who is immune … In 8 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 9 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 10 construes those allegations in the
Cited 0 timesUnknown(SS) Mallory v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, E.D. California · Feb 16, 2021
812 F.2d 1226, 1232 (9th Cir. 12 1987) (“If the Magistrate’s conclusion that there was no psychiatric evidence is based on an 13 assumption that such evidence must be offered by a Board-certified psychiatrist, it is clearly … However, the record did not establish which months plaintiff held which 20 job. Id. at *2.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 19, 2025
Feb. 10, 2025) (Iranian national visa applicants 11 adequately established standing to assert their unlawful delay claims). … “The agency action must be pursuant to a legal obligation 22 ‘so clearly set forth that it could traditionally have been enforced through a writ of 23 mandamus.’”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Nov 1, 2023
To establish a claim of 17 deliberate indifference arising from a delay in providing care, a plaintiff must show that the delay 18 was harmful. See Berry v. … Plaintiff is advised that in an amended complaint, she 16 must clearly identify each defendant and the action that defendant took that violated her 17 constitutional rights.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 7, 2025
27 1 Defendants also raise additional arguments, including that Defendants are entitled to qualified … immunity. 28 The Court need not address these other arguments as the arguments discussed below dispose of this case. 1 Additionally, Defendants assert that Plaintiff either (1) had been diagnosed with certain
Cited 0 timesUnknownHoopa Valley Tribe v. United States Bureau of Reclamation
District Court, E.D. California · Feb 8, 2023
[a relief is] (a) a grant of money, assistance, license, authority, etc., or (b) recognition of a claim, right, immunity, etc., or (c) a 22 taking of other action on the application or petition … Among other things, the Tenth Circuit found that the claim was non- 10 justiciable because the Army’s decision to commence trial burns did not qualify as final agency 11 action given that the record did not suggest “the
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 25, 2023
The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 13 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 14 490 U.S. at 327. … Inmate Grievances 5 The existence of a prison grievance procedure establishes a procedural right only and 6 “does not confer any substantive right upon the inmates.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 17, 2023
Only Supreme Court precedent may constitute “clearly established 15 Federal law,” but courts may look to circuit law “to ascertain whether…the particular point in 16 issue is clearly established by Supreme Court precedent … The question remains objective reasonableness under clearly established 8 Supreme Court precedent.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS)Meeks v. Butte County Children's Services Division
District Court, E.D. California · Sep 1, 2022
Under this standard, a court must dismiss a complaint as frivolous 24 where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are 25 clearly baseless. … There are three ways a “policy” can be established.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Coleman v. County of Sacramento
District Court, E.D. California · Sep 6, 2024
identifying which defendant(s) are allegedly at fault for each claim, and 11 clearly identifying what legal cause of action is being asserted. … It is 27 “well-established that there is generally no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases.” United 28 States v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 16, 2025
Rather, Defendant contends that Defendant provided 27 28 2 Defendant also argues that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity and that Plaintiff … Civil recklessness (failure “to act in the face of an unjustifiably high 16 risk of harm that is either known or so obvious that it should be known”) is insufficient to 17 establish an Eighth Amendment violation.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 30, 2020
“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 28 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Similarly, the fact that Leon spoke to plaintiff in English does not establish discrimination, 1 particularly when plaintiff claims an interpreter should have been used, which suggests that Leon 2 does not speak Spanish
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 4, 2021
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. … The only statutes identified by plaintiffs are clearly 24 inapplicable to this case. (Id. at 9 (citing four sections of U.S.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 29, 2022
The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 21 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 22 490 U.S. at 327. … By establishing the existence of a serious medical need, a prisoner satisfies the 25 objective requirement for proving an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 12, 2020
“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 13 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … These circumstances are common to many inmates and do not establish the 2 exceptional circumstances necessary to warrant the appointment of counsel.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 11, 2021
“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 12 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3318(b) (providing for staff assistants to aid 21 qualifying inmates). California prison regulations also provide for investigative employees, but 22 this is not a requirement of due process.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 17, 2021
the ADA Amendment Act of 2008 and thereby 12 predated the rules of construction regarding disability set forth 13 in that amendment, whereas here the incident took place on 14 November 23, 2020, clearly … First, 28 Plaintiff responds to Harr’s argument that he is entitled to 1 discretionary immunity pursuant to California Government Code 2 Section 820.8, see Mot. at 7, by again pointing to the
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna