Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.50s
(PC) Bland v. State of California
District Court, E.D. California · Jun 30, 2021
Id. 10 District courts must deny requests for mandatory injunctions unless the law and facts clearly favor 11 a moving party. Id. The Court will not grant such requests in doubtful cases. … Deprivation of constitutional rights can qualify as irreparable harm. E.g., Melendres v. 11 | Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 11, 2020
The court 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 baseless. Neitzke, 18 490 U.S. at 327. … Thus, plaintiff has not established that these defendants had 25 the requisite knowledge of plaintiff’s mental health status which is one of the elements needed to 26 establish a claim of deliberate indifference to serious
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC)Houston v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Dept.
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 10, 2021
An equal 16 protection claim may be established by showing that defendants intentionally discriminated 17 against plaintiff based on his membership in a protected class, Hartmann, 707 F.3d at 1123, or 18 that similarly … Plaintiff is advised that in an amended complaint he must clearly identify each 16 defendant and the action that defendant took that violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 22, 2022
A denial must fairly respond to the 3 substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny 4 only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny … qualify or deny the rest.”). 1 at *3 (C.D.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 28, 2020
If he chooses 17 to do so, plaintiff will need to clearly identify the individual who imposed the yellow card and 18 jumpsuit restrictions. … Moreover, 25 plaintiff has not established that he had a constitutional right to receive “all the paperwork” 26 related to his rules violation incident so that he could file an appeal at a later date.
Cited 0 timesUnknownJohnston v. Merced District Attorney's Office
District Court, E.D. California · Nov 25, 2019
The Court 25 finds that the Complaint fails to state any cognizable claim. 26 After Plaintiff reviews this order, Plaintiff can decide to file an amended complaint, 27 which states clearly what each … “The requisite causal connection may be 2 established when an official sets in motion a ‘series of acts by others which the actor knows or 3 reasonably should know would cause others to inflict’ constitutional harms.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 10, 2025
established, both by common sense and by precedent, that due process 25 requires that fair notice of what conduct is prohibited before a sanction can be imposed.” … Liberally construed, Plaintiff has failed to establish that defendants 22 Kutney and Lopez violated his due process rights.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 21, 2022
or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 17 legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 18 that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … A failure “to clearly identify the persons/entities plaintiff is suing,” warrants dismissal 12 under Rule 10(a). Rickard v. Riverside County Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 5:20-cv-00539-AB-JC, 13 2020 WL 5027985, at *5 (C.D.
Cited 0 timesUnknownRocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Goldstene
719 F. Supp. 2d 1170 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 16, 2010
California is the only state that qualifies for the Section 209 waiver or Section 211(c)(4)(A) preemption exemption. See, Davis v. E.P.A, 348 F.3d 772 , 777 n. 1 (9th Cir.2003); Engine Mftrs. Ass’n v. … In their complaints, plaintiffs clearly allege that California’s LCFS conflicts with Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act.
Cited 4 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 10, 2023
portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 6 legally “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or 7 that “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Americans with Disabilities Act 26 The ADA provides, “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 20, 2019
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. … Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 4 | 2010) (leave to amend properly denied as futile where facts failed to establish a constitutional 5 || violation as a matter of law).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 6, 2021
In order to establish an Eighth Amendment violation, a plaintiff must 17 establish a prison official’s subjective “deliberate indifference” to the unconstitutional conditions 18 of confinement. Farmer v. … If plaintiff chooses to file an 12 || amended complaint, it should be clearly titled “Second Amended Complaint” and reference the 13 || appropriate case number.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 25, 2021
But she fails to cite any such cases that would constitute clearly-established authority of the United States Supreme Court, and this Court is not aware of any. … Lacking such clearly-established Supreme Court authority, it cannot be concluded that the appellate court’s ruling contravened or unreasonably applied federal law.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC)Ausborn v. California Health Care Facility
District Court, E.D. California · Jun 11, 2021
“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 13 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Medical malpractice and 14 negligence are not enough to establish deliberate indifference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 15 835-837 (1994).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 17, 2025
“The requisite causal connection can be 19 established not only by some kind of direct personal participation in the deprivation, but also by … “Inmates clearly retain 12 protections afforded by the First Amendment, including its directive that no law shall prohibit 13 the free exercise of religion.” O’Lone v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Razaq v. California Department of Corrections
District Court, E.D. California · Sep 29, 2020
As a basic 26 matter, the complaint does not clearly state what happened, when it happened or who was 27 involved. … establish that policy.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 30, 2020
“A showing of 25 medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under 26 the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 1060. … “[E]ven gross negligence is insufficient to establish a 27 constitutional violation.” Id. (citing Wood v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 2, 2021
complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 7 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 8 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … An authorized 10 deprivation is one carried out pursuant to established state procedures, regulations, or statutes. 11 Piatt v. McDougall, 773 F.2d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Knudson v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Nov 2, 2023
Specifically, Petitioner asserts that his Indiana Code convictions are not categorically 24 qualified predicates under Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) and Mathis v. … pursuant to 25 26 27 3 “[W]here intervening Supreme Court authority is clearly
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Nov 2, 2023
Specifically, Petitioner asserts that his Indiana Code convictions are not categorically 24 qualified predicates under Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) and Mathis v. … pursuant to 25 26 27 3 “[W]here intervening Supreme Court authority is clearly
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna