Case law

(PC) Cyprian v. Constable

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 16, 2023

10 immunity. … Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 21 In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not 22 establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor.

(PC) Bennett v. Burton

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 22, 2021

complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 14 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 15 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the 8 facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal 9 connection between the defendant’s wrongful

Covello

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 16, 2025

, then it “must specify the part 17 admitted and qualify or deny the rest.” … Clearly, if there are discovery requests for which 14 defendants have not provided response, they must do so.

(PC) Boone v. Ruby

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 21, 2022

The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal 2 theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … The obviousness of the risk, however, 7 may be sufficient to establish knowledge. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842; Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 8 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1995).

(PC) Suarez v. Shirley

District Court, E.D. California · May 3, 2021

frivolous 28 1 or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 2 relief from a defendant who is immune … Plaintiff has failed 6 to “demonstrate that his deprivation resulted from an official policy or custom established by 7 a...policymaker possessed with final authority to establish that policy.”

(PC) Diggs v. Solano County Jail

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 1, 2021

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 1 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 2 490 U.S. at 327. … A 9 showing of merely negligent medical care is not enough to establish a constitutional violation. 10 Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir. 1998), citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-106.

Polk v. Yee

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 24, 2020

Amendment, because plaintiffs have 4 not established the exception in Ex parte Young applies. … In other words, plaintiffs argue, union 26 membership itself is not sufficient to establish a First Amendment waiver.

Smallwood

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2025

P. 72(a) under the 4 “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law” standards. 5 Governing Legal Standards 6 Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure … through 25 1 Although Rule 26(b)(3) applies only to documents and tangible things, some courts have noted 26 that the work product doctrine established

(PC) Davis v. Pam

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

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. … “[E]ven gross negligence is insufficient to establish a 28 constitutional violation.” Id. (citing Wood v.

Paul Hebbe v. City of Folsom, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 3, 2025

IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 5 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 6 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 20 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 21 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations

Paul Hebbe v. City of Folsom, et al.

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

IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 5 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 6 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 20 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 21 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations

(HC) Reginald Tanubagijo v. Daniel Paramo

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

“was contrary to, or involved an 5 unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court 6 of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). … 1 what law is “clearly established” and what constitutes “unreasonable application” of that law. 2 Duchaime v.

(PC) Revis v. Moore

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 5, 2023

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 … lite, ‘courts should be extremely cautious’ about 16 issuing a preliminary injunction and should not grant such relief unless the facts and law clearly

(HC) Daniels v. Fox

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 7, 2020

Circuit court precedent “may be persuasive in determining 12 what law is clearly established and whether a state court applied that law unreasonably.” Stanley, 13 633 F.3d at 859 (quoting Maxwell v. … Further, where courts of appeals have diverged in their treatment of an issue, it 20 cannot be said that there is “clearly established Federal law” governing that issue.

(PC) Garcia v. Chandra

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 2, 2023

or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 27 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 28 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The bulk of his attached typewritten “supporting facts” involve his 12 allegations concerning retaliation, each page of which is clearly marked “Claim I.”

State of Cal. v. Bergland

483 F. Supp. 465 · District Court, E.D. California · Jan 8, 1980

Secondly, Congress will be denied the opportunity for reasoned consideration with site specific information of areas designated nonwilderness that may well qualify for wilderness designation. … First, they argue that plaintiffs have not established the equitable prerequisites for injunctive relief.

(PC) Howell v. Conrad

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 14, 2020

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where 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. … “The right of meaningful access to the courts extends to established prison 27 grievance procedures.” Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th Cir. 1995) (overruled on other 28 grounds by Shaw v.

(PC) Epperson v. Solano County Jail Medical

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 3, 2021

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where 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. … A 19 showing of merely negligent medical care is not enough to establish a constitutional violation. 20 Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir. 1998), citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-106.

(PC) McCardie v. California State Prison Corcoran

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 26, 2021

As a basic 4 matter, the complaint does not clearly state what happened, when it happened or who was 5 involved. Plaintiff’s allegations in the amended complaint are less clear than in the original 6 complaint. … Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish 14 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v.

(PC) Vang v. County of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 21, 2021

complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 8 “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 9 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 13 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v.