Case law

Aiken v. Obledo

442 F. Supp. 628 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 2, 1977

But, it is equally well established that an organization may establish standing by suing as a representative of its members who have been injured in fact, and who could have brought suit in their own right. Simon v. … Thus, in the instant case LAHCRO’s claim for declaratory and injunctive relief is clearly within the bounds permitted by Warth .

(PC) Lachoy Roychelle Davis v. Andrade

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 3, 2019

Mere negligence on the 14 part of the prison official is not sufficient to establish liability, but rather, the official’s conduct 15 must have been wanton. … The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly 6 titled “First Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original 7 signed under penalty of perjury.

(PC) Rouser v. Crounse

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

In order 7 to state a cause of action for deprivation of procedural due process, a plaintiff must first establish 8 the existence of a liberty interest for which the protection is sought. … an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 15 alleged. 16 The First Amended Complaint should be clearly

(PC) Anderson v. Rosenlof

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 8, 2024

By establishing the existence of a serious medical need, a prisoner satisfies the 26 objective requirement for proving an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer v. … Plaintiff is advised that in an amended complaint he must clearly identify each 17 defendant and the action that defendant took that violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Teresa Lim v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 1, 2025

In 16 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 17 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 18 construes those allegations in the … A federal court’s jurisdiction may be established in one of two ways: actions 19 arising under federal law or those between citizens of different states in which the 20 alleged damages exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

Warden

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 2, 2026

The facility is 11 overcrowded, which exacerbates his chronic urticaria and weakened immune system. … The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “‘indefinite and potentially permanent’ 15 civil detention . . . clearly pose[s] serious substantive due process concerns.”

(PC) Millare v. CDCR

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 30, 2023

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. … individual defendants should be dismissed. 8 Defendant CDCR 9 To show a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show the following: “(1) he is 10 a ‘qualified

(PC) Edwards v. Kuersten

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 7, 2021

or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 24 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … “[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 1 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Jackson v.

Cook v. Board of Trustees of CSU

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 18, 2025

; 8 (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he was subject to an adverse employment 9 action; and (4) similarly situated individuals outside his protected class were treated 10 more favorably.” … It is sufficient that Plaintiff can 5 establish that he suffered an adverse employment action.

(PC) Rojas v. County of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 20, 2023

“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 7 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … “Proof of random acts or isolated events is 13 insufficient to establish custom,” Navarro v.

Magee v. County of Tuolumne

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

Designations that are shown to be 27 clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily encumber or 28 retard the case development process or to impose unnecessary expenses and … must be clearly so designated before the material is 9 disclosed or produced. 10 Designation in conformity with this Order requires: 11 (a)

Pfeiffer

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 10, 2026

Nothing in Plaintiff’s motion establishes the Court 3 clearly erred by striking his opposition as untimely, nor has he shown the Court’s determination is 4 contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. … The then assigned magistrate 5 judge explained the basis for her ruling (see Doc. 35 at 2-3) and Plaintiff’s instant motion fails to 6 establish the ruling was clearly erroneous. 7 In

(PC) Cox v. North Kern State Prison Officials

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 8, 2021

As a basic 23 matter, the complaint does not clearly state what happened, when it happened or who was 24 … 11 with final authority to establish that policy.”

(PC) Belmonte v. Palomares

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

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 2 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 3 490 U.S. at 327. … Grievance Procedure 28 The existence of a prison grievance procedure establishes a procedural right only and 1 “does not confer any substantive right upon the inmates.”

Jones

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 2, 2026

established law. 8 Under both standards, “clearly established law” means those holdings of the United States 9 Supreme Court as of the time of the relevant state court decision. … For federal law to be clearly established, the Supreme Court must provide a 13 “categorical answer” to the question before the state court.

(PC) Ontiveros v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 13, 2020

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 7 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 8 490 U.S. at 327. … A prisoner establishes actual injury by showing he was actually denied 4 access to the courts. Id. (citing Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir.1989)).

(PC) Williams v. Ogbuehi

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 15, 2024

Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity 10 because there was no established right to treatment for Hepatitis-C after … However, the note actually states 24 regarding HCV “no hepatotoxins alt 29, ast 15, positive immunity to hep A/B.” (Id. at 28).

(PS) Clewies v. Dept. of Child Support Services

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

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 … In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 15 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 16 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations

(PC) Hill v. Rios

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

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 22 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 23 490 U.S. at 327. … Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-33 (1986). 13 It is clearly established in this circuit that “‘(1) [civil detainees] have a constitutional right 14 to be safe in the state institution to which they are committed,

(PC)Riseley v. Covella

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 23, 2023

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably 15 meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 16 327. … An authorized deprivation is one carried out pursuant to established state procedures, 6 regulations or statutes. Piatt v. McDougall, 773 F.2d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 1985); see also 7 Knudson v.