Case law

A.H. v. Sacramento County Dept. Child, Family and Adult Services

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 23, 2022

But the court will dismiss such unnamed defendants if discovery clearly would not uncover their identities or if the complaint would clearly be dismissed on other grounds. Id. at 642. … Plaintiffs oppose, relying on case law addressing supervisory 1 liability and qualified immunity. Opp’n at 5. However, neither body of case law addresses the 2 issue here.

Brown

District Court, E.D. California · May 11, 2026

IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 28 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 1 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … ECF No. 1 at 3. 1 that would necessarily imply the invalidity of the conviction or sentence, the plaintiff must 2 establish that the underlying sentence or conviction has been invalidated on appeal, by a habeas 3

Dimitri Z. Storm v. HDSP CDCR Officers, et. al.

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

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 10 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 11 490 U.S. at 327. … An individual defendant is not liable on a civil 19 rights claim unless the facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional 20 deprivation or a causal connection between the defendant’s wrongful

Beitzel v. Becerra

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

administrative channel for review and redress clearly exists here 25 -- one under which plaintiffs have even found some measure of … Accordingly, he requests a reasonable 18 modification for “Medicare-covered administration of [Stelara] by 19 a qualified health care professional.”

McGee v. Poverello House

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

Sept. 4, 2009) (holding San Francisco Housing Authority does 24 not qualify as “business establishment” because it administers governmental housing programs to 25 qualified participants); Romstad v. … Plaintiffs cite two cases regarding rental units qualifying as 8 business establishments. See Marina Point, Ltd. v.

(HC) Kennedy v. Brazelton

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 12, 2019

. § 2254(d), this Court cannot grant relief unless the decision of the state court was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the … Where holdings of the Supreme Court regarding the issue presented on habeas review are lacking, “it cannot be said that the state court ‘unreasonabl[y] appli[ed] clearly established Federal law.’” Carey v.

(PC) Davis v. Kelley

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 20, 2022

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 6 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 7 490 U.S. at 327. … Plaintiff is advised that in an 5 amended complaint he must clearly identify each defendant and the action that defendant took 6 that violated his constitutional rights.

(PS) Bisi v. Chase Bank (USA) N.A.

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 3, 2023

The undersigned recommends denying the motion 20 because plaintiffs have not established likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.1 21 I. … Thus, plaintiffs have not established they are 10 | likely to succeed on the merits of the breach of contract claim. 11 IV.

(PC) Cordova v. Wellpath Healthcare

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 5, 2024

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 … The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 14 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 15 490 U.S. at 327.

(PC) Wolinski v. Abdulgader

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 6, 2023

“To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that 2 (1) [he] is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) [he] was excluded from participation in or 3 otherwise discriminated against with … “To establish a violation of 12 § 504 of the RA, a plaintiff must show that (1) [he] is handicapped within the meaning of the RA; 13 (2) [he] is otherwise qualified for the benefit or services sought; (3) [he] was denied

(PC) Smith v. Secretary

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 12, 2021

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 19 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 20 490 U.S. at 327. … Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. 17 Given the above, plaintiff has not satisfied the linkage requirement and the complaint does 18 not contain sufficient facts to establish deliberate indifference by the defendants.

(PS)Elam v. CEPTS

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 23, 2021

A court 20 may dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or 21 where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. … Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) 23 (noting the burden for establishing diversity jurisdiction is on the party asserting it).

Pamma

District Court, E.D. California · May 22, 2026

However, given the general nature of these suggestions, the Court does not make its 28 determination on this basis. 1 clearly appropriate. … The balance of equities here 25 also clearly weighs in Plaintiff’s favor.

(PC) Rayford v. Sherman

District Court, E.D. California · May 23, 2022

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages 12 liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established 13 at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Qualified 15 immunity analysis requires two prongs of inquiry: “(1) whether ‘the facts alleged show the 16 official’s conduct violated a constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the right was clearly 17 established

Cnty. of Fresno v. Azar

384 F. Supp. 3d 1164 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 30, 2019

The issuance of POBs is "financing" and the interest costs stemming therefrom are clearly prohibited by Circular A-87, Attachment B, Section D.7. … Second, the language of OMB's answer to HHS' question on this issue, as set out in the 1994 guidance letter, very clearly addressed only the initial issuance of POBs to fund an existing UAL.

Amado v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 27, 2025

Lelievre as a defendant should be rejected as ‘fraudulent’ because Home Depot is clearly the 13 target defendant to satisfy the judgment or settlement . . . for the negligence of its employees.” 14 (Id. at 8.)4 Defendants … Lelievre . . . should be rejected as ‘fraudulent’ because Home Depot is clearly the 16 target defendant to satisfy the judgment or settlement.” (Doc. 11 at 8.)

(PC) Kendrid v. Cudjo

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 23, 2021

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 20 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 21 490 U.S. at 327. … In an amended complaint plaintiff must clearly identify each 12 defendant and the action that defendant took that violated his constitutional rights.

Premier Pools Mgmt. Corp. v. Colony Ins. Co.

328 F. Supp. 3d 1075 · District Court, E.D. California · Jul 25, 2018

Here, similarly, this Court previously granted Defendant's summary judgment motion on the basis that Plaintiff did not qualify as an insured entity under Defendant's policies. … The Ninth Circuit's written opinion reversed this Court's ruling on whether Plaintiff qualified as an insured entity. Ninth Circuit Ruling at 3.

Montes v. Capstone Logistics, LLC

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

Dickinson has 13 sufficiently established his personal knowledge regarding the content of the Agreement. … To be sure, following Ortiz, a warehouse worker may qualify as a transportation 13 worker.

(PS) Butler v. County of Shasta

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 28, 2025

P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 1 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 2 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless … “In order to establish municipal liability [under Monell], a plaintiff must show 26 that a ‘policy or custom’ led to the plaintiff’s injury.” Castro v.