Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.62s
District Court, E.D. California · Feb 10, 2020
By establishing the existence of a serious medical need, a prisoner satisfies the 15 objective requirement for proving an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer v. … Plaintiff is advised that in an amended complaint he must 16 clearly identify each defendant and the action that defendant took that violated his constitutional 17 rights.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDavid Wiens v. United States of America
District Court, E.D. California · Aug 25, 2026
It is the plaintiff['s] 23 burden, under both Rule 8 and Rule 11, to reasonably investigate their claims, to research the 24 relevant law, to plead only viable claims, and to plead those claims concisely and clearly, … Because the FTCA 18 operates as a waiver of sovereign immunity, and such waiver is expressly predicated on 19 presentation of an administrative claim, 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a), satisfaction of the presentation 20 requirement
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 2, 2025
forma pauperis 5 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to 6 state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a 7 defendant who is immune … In 10 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 11 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 12 construes those allegations in the
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Koch v. Sacramento County
District Court, E.D. California · Dec 19, 2023
The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless 3 legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. … “Proof of random acts or 14 isolated events does not satisfy the plaintiff’s burden to establish a custom or policy.”
Cited 0 timesUnknown922 F. Supp. 2d 882 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 4, 2009
The procedural history described above clearly establishes that the Plata and Coleman courts have previously entered orders for less intrusive relief that have failed to remedy the constitutional deprivations at issue in … The evidence clearly establishes that, because of overcrowding, the state is limited in its capacity to classify inmates properly according to their security risk or programming needs. See, e.g., Rep.
Cited 46 timesPublished(PC) McCoy-Gordon v. Hernandez
District Court, E.D. California · Sep 3, 2019
Mere negligence on the part of the prison official is not sufficient to establish liability, but 3 rather, the official’s conduct must have been wanton. … “The party 22 invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing ‘standing.’” Susan B. Anthony List, 23 134 S.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 3, 2022
12 establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. … Qualified Immunity 9 In light of these findings, the undersigned declines to address the issue of qualified 10 immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 10, 2020
Isaacs is a 12 psychologist, not a medical doctor, and is not qualified to prescribe medication. Scarborough 13 Decl. Ex. 2 (Isaacs Dep.) at 8:11-15; 9:6-20. Dr. … ECF No. 6. 18 The case is accordingly governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), which “waives the 19 sovereign immunity of the United States for actions in tort” and “vests the federal district courts 20 with
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 11, 2021
“[R]eview under the clearly 24 erroneous standard is significantly deferential, requiring a definite and firm conviction that a 25 mistake has been committed.” Exxon Co. v. … “A party’s destruction of evidence qualifies as willful spoliation if the party has ‘some notice 2 that the documents were potentially relevant to the litigation before they were destroyed.’”
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Hassan v. California Medical Board
District Court, E.D. California · Jul 20, 2021
Plaintiff 22 clearly was not waiting for a ruling on his mandamus petition to file his §1983 claims. … The 4 circumstances of this case do not qualify for equitable relief from the statute of limitations, for the 5 reasons already explained.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 20, 2021
Similarly, the Clark Remedial Plan is part of a class-action settlement establishing policies to ensure prisoners with developmental disabilities are protected from discrimination and injury. … But the Court is skeptical that 16 Plaintiff can otherwise clearly articulate his claims pro se. That is a factor that the Court is bound 17 to consider. See, e.g., Cano, 739 F.3d at 1218; Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 15, 2020
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 … If plaintiff is alleging retaliation, he 16 must establish that: (1) defendant took some adverse action against him (2) because of (3) that 17 prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate's
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 15, 2022
The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 18 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 19 490 U.S. at 327. … Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 22 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 23 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 8, 2023
The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 28 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 1 490 U.S. at 327. … Since CDCR is a state agency, defendants who are its employees, are immune from suit 22 for monetary damages in their official capacity. 23 D.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Nov 15, 2023
complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner 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 … Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) 19 (negligence constituting medical malpractice is not sufficient to establish an Eighth Amendment 20 violation).
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC)Allen v. Sacramento County Jail Medical Staff
District Court, E.D. California · Nov 8, 2021
The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 3 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 4 490 U.S. at 327. … A 28 showing of merely negligent medical care is not enough to establish a constitutional violation. 1 Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir. 1998), citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-106.
Cited 0 timesUnknownRobert Sims v. Sara V. Centeno
District Court, E.D. California · Jan 21, 2026
27 4 Because the Court is recommending that Defendant be granted summary judgment, it will not address her argument that she is also entitled to qualified … immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownHafer v. Farmers Insurance Agency
District Court, E.D. California · Aug 10, 2022
It is not clear, however, what conduct 10 by Defendant establishes her claim. 11 Plaintiff must set forth factual allegations against Defendant sufficient to state a claim. … The 15 amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First Amended Complaint,” refer to the 16 appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury.
Cited 0 timesUnknownAmy Kimmons v. Sacramento Sheriff Department, et al.
District Court, E.D. California · May 11, 2026
Ct. 25 547 (2024) (“To establish the “state-created danger” exception, a plaintiff must prove two 26 things[:] The officer’s affirmative conduct must expose the plaintiff to a foreseeable danger that 27 she would not … It now 24 clearly appears that granting further leave to amend would be futile. Thus, the SAC should be 25 dismissed without further leave to amend. See California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 21, 2023
The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 8 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 9 490 U.S. at 327. … individual defendants are dismissed. 15 CDCR 16 To show a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show the following: “(1) he is 17 a ‘qualified
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna