Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.30s
District Court, E.D. California · Jul 20, 2023
Even gross 21 negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood 22 v. … The Eighth 11 Amendment right to food was clearly established as of at least 2001. Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 12 807, 815 (9th Cir. 2009).
Cited 0 timesUnknownMollica v. County of Sacramento
District Court, E.D. California · Feb 2, 2022
The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department has established a procedure under this 15 section. See General Order, Merin Decl. Ex. B, ECF No. 38-1. … “[A] more or less routine investigation of a 14 possibly resistible claim is not sufficient to immunize under the work product rule an 15 investigative report developed in the ordinary course of business.” Id.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 18, 2024
“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 12 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994), the Supreme Court established a very strict standard 20 which a plaintiff must meet to establish “deliberate indifference.” Negligence and even 21 recklessness are insufficient.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 3, 2021
“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 12 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Ct. 1970 (1994) the Supreme Court 7 established a very strict standard which a plaintiff must meet in order to establish “deliberate 8 indifference.” Negligence is insufficient. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 13, 2024
“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 14 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … ECF No. 7. 8 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 9 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 26, 2021
The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 10 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 11 490 U.S. at 327. … An equal 22 protection claim may be established by demonstrating that the defendant intentionally 23 discriminated against the plaintiff on the basis of the plaintiff's membership in a protected class, 24 such as race
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 19, 2022
Designations that are shown to be clearly unjustified or 20 that have been made for an improper purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily encumber the case 21 development process or to impose unnecessary expenses and burdens on … A challenging party may proceed to the next stage of the challenge process only if it 18 has engaged in this meet and confer process first or establishes that the designating party is 19 unwilling to participate in the
Cited 0 timesUnknownLangley v. Guiding Hands School, Inc.
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 2021
Throughout the SAC, Plaintiffs fail to clearly set forth the 25 factual allegations giving rise to each particular Plaintiff’s claims. See Bautista v. … “There is 18 no established test in the Ninth Circuit for when a district court should exercise its broad 19 discretion to sever a claim under Rule 21.” Arcure v. Cal.
Cited 0 timesUnknownJacqulynn Patricia Powell v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, E.D. California · Sep 9, 2025
As such, it cannot be said that the ALJ’s 15 conclusion that the Plaintiff’s sleep apnea was non-severe was clearly established by medical 16 evidence. … First, as noted above, the ALJ did not cite to medical 20 evidence clearly establishing the lack of a medically severe impairment.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(SS) Uptain v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, E.D. California · Nov 21, 2024
Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008). 8 To qualify for benefits under the Social Security Act, a plaintiff must establish that 9 … DeSouza or PA Rodriguez believed that a cane 7 was necessary, nor how clearly they explained that opinion, nor how supported that opinion was if 8 Plaintiff did not actually use a cane.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 8, 2021
A 16 court may dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory 17 or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327; Rule 12(h)(3). … It is well- 22 established that, with very few exceptions specifically outlined by Congress, the federal court 23 cannot issue a writ of mandamus commanding action by a state or its agencies.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 4, 2020
Mere 9 negligence is not sufficient to establish an unconstitutional denial of access to the courts. See 10 Stevenson v. … These 20 allegations sufficiently establish that these defendants acted with discriminatory intent based on 21 plaintiff’s status as a transgender individual.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(HC) Cross v. Kings County Sheriff
District Court, E.D. California · Feb 26, 2024
10 . . . recent decisions”; otherwise, there is no clearly established Federal law for purposes of 11 review under AEDPA. … If no clearly established Federal law exists, the inquiry is at an 14 end and the Court must defer to the state court’s decision.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 10, 2023
Even gross negligence is insufficient to 4 establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v. … In other words, plaintiff must clearly identify each defendant 27 and the action that defendant took that violated his constitutional rights.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 17, 2023
As a basic 6 matter, the complaint does not clearly allege what happened. With the exception of the acts of 7 Defendants Hurtado and Coronado, it is unclear what happened. … To state a cognizable retaliation claim, Plaintiff must establish a 16 nexus between the retaliatory act and the protected activity. Grenning v. Klemme, 34 F.Supp.3d 17 1144, 1153 (E.D. Wash. 2014).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 16, 2021
“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 12 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … The allegation that Diaz denied plaintiff’s appeal is insufficient to establish the 11 necessary personal involvement because there is no claim for the “loss of a liberty interest in the 12 processing of his appeals .
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 13, 2021
or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 26 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 27 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … That means clearly explaining who did what, when, and how 19 each defendant’s actions caused plaintiff harm.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 20, 2021
Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 7 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012). 8 Here, Plaintiff fails to clearly state what happened. … Mere negligence on the part of the prison official is not sufficient to establish liability, but 20 rather, the official’s conduct must have been wanton.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Nov 17, 2025
complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 8 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 9 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 13 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 14 490 U.S. at 327.
Cited 0 timesUnknown142 F. Supp. 3d 1007 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 2, 2015
A court interprets statutory terms “in accordance with their ordinary meáning, unless the statute clearly expresses an intention to the contrary.” Id. (citing United States v. … “[T]ermination plainly qualifies as an adverse employment action.” See Lakeside-Scott v.
Cited 22 timesPublished
Ask Donna