Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.18s
District Court, E.D. California · Jan 7, 2020
Bureau 15 of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) to the “new context” at issue in this case, (3) Defendants are 16 entitled to qualified immunity, and (4) Plaintiff fails to show that Defendants were deliberately 17 indifferent … In other words, the facts do not establish a causal connection between Defendants’ conduct 7 and the Eighth Amendment deprivation Plaintiff allegedly suffered. See Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 373- 8 75.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 13, 2024
immunity in any event; and (5) Plaintiff has 22 offered no facts to support her Bane Act claim. 23 The Court addresses a few threshold matters before moving to the more 24 substantive issues … immunity 1 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to the seizure of the weapons on 2 December 26.9 3 C.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Ackers v. California Employment Development Department
District Court, E.D. California · Apr 7, 2021
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 … In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 1 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 2 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 9, 2019
The remainder of the complaint was also dismissed for a qualifying reason 21 under the PLRA. Dismissal therefore counts as a strike. Washington v. Los Angeles Cty. … 23 reason under the PLRA). 3 When the Ninth Circuit relies on the district court’s certification that appeals are not taken in 24 good faith, the dismissed appeals “clearly
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 23, 2022
As a basic 25 matter, the complaint does not clearly state what happened, when it happened or who was 26 involved. … possessed 9 with final authority to establish that policy.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownNanthavong v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
District Court, E.D. California · May 15, 2024
These allegations 15 must also satisfy the “single establishment” requirement by establishing a 16 discrimination in the payment of wages between employees “within a single 17 establishment[.]” Bartlet v. … Courts 9 have been clear that to state a prima facie EPA claim a plaintiff must be able to allege 10 that she was receiving lower compensation than similarly qualified individuals in the 11 same establishment who are
Cited 0 timesUnknown342 F. Supp. 2d 900 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 4, 2004
The opinion of the California courts that petitioner’s motions for change of venue were properly denied did not result in a decision that was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law … The California Court of Appeal’s ruling to that effect was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court on procedural default.
Cited 3 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 2, 2023
“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 12 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … To establish a violation of this 27 duty, a prisoner must “show that the officials acted with deliberate indifference to threat of 28 //// 1 serious
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 28, 2020
complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous 26 or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 27 relief from a defendant who is immune … By establishing the existence 14 of a serious medical need, a prisoner satisfies the objective requirement for proving an Eighth 15 Amendment violation. Farmer v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownCharles J. Bicking, IV v. Grass Valley School District, et al.
District Court, E.D. California · Jun 18, 2026
In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 11 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 12 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations … Accordingly, 18 Title 18 of the United States Code does not establish any private right of action and cannot 19 support a civil lawsuit. See Aldabe v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownTeresa 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
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 21, 2025
forma pauperis 3 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 4 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 5 immune … In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the 7 factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 8 construes those allegations in the light
Cited 0 timesUnknown(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.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 9, 2025
complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 10 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 11 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Chung, 391 11 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (negligence constituting medical malpractice is not sufficient to 12 establish an Eighth Amendment violation). 13 V.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 23, 2023
“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 12 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 17 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 7, 2022
immunity. … Because defendants did not violate plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights, the court need not 28 | address the question of qualified immunity. Pearson v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 9, 2024
He also does not clearly 6 identify his claims, causes of action, or the relief that he is seeking. … Thus, Plaintiff's complaint does not establish federal question jurisdiction. 21 V.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Guyton v. City of Stockton
District Court, E.D. California · May 31, 2024
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 … Accordingly, Title 18 of the United States Code does 26 not establish any private right of action and cannot support a civil lawsuit. See Aldabe v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 7, 2020
complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 6 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 7 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … “[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 11 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Jackson v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Hernandez v. Mule Creek State Prison
District Court, E.D. California · Jul 8, 2020
The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 11 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 12 490 U.S. at 327. … An authorized 26 deprivation is one carried out pursuant to established state procedures, regulations, or statutes. 27 Piatt v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna