Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.37s
District 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 · 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 timesUnknown(PS) Sarkis v. Yolo County Public Agency Risk Mgt. Ins. Authority
District Court, E.D. California · Jul 31, 2023
Failure to Allege Sufficient Facts to State a Cause of Action 13 Plaintiff argues that defendants’ first affirmative defense—failure to allege sufficient facts 14 to state a cause of action—does not qualify as an … 6 The thirteenth affirmative defense is that “[p]laintiff’s damages for emotional distress, if 7 any, are barred in that conduct by these answering Defendants neither contravened any 8 established
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 · Jul 7, 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 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (negligence 8 constituting medical malpractice is not sufficient to establish an Eighth Amendment violation). 9 C.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 1, 2022
As a basic matter, the complaint does not clearly state what 22 happened, when it happened or who was involved. … An equal protection claim may be established by 24 showing that defendants intentionally discriminated against a plaintiff based on her membership 25 in a protected class, Comm. Concerning Cmty. Improvement v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Wren v. Mule Creek Prison
District Court, E.D. California · Jun 29, 2021
See id. at 833. 5 To establish a violation of a prison official’s duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from 6 physical abuse, the prisoner must establish that prison officials were “deliberately indifferent … “Mere negligence is not 8 sufficient to establish liability.” Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998).
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 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 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 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 8, 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 16 process only if it has engaged in this meet and confer process first or establishes that the 17 designating party is unwilling to participate in the
Cited 0 timesUnknownLaurino v. United States Postal Service
District Court, E.D. California · Dec 2, 2019
“To qualify 13 for the Fifth Amendment privilege, a communication must be testimonial, incriminating, and 14 compelled.” Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. … Because the production of the documents had a testimonial aspect, the defendant 14 could not be compelled to produce them without being granted immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 8, 2024
The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 15 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 16 490 U.S. at 327. … Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 19 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 20 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 8, 2020
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 22 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 23 from a defendant who is immune … Nonetheless, while the court has clearly 1 stated that one of the “basic elements” of a First Amendment retaliation claim is that the adverse 2 action “chilled the inmates exercise of his First Amendment rights,” id.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 24, 2024
“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 8 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Defendant’s 4 supervisory position alone is not sufficient to establish this link.
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 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 8, 2020
The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 16 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 17 490 U.S. at 327. … Navajo County Ariz., 609 22 F.3d 1011, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2010) (requiring official be subjectively aware of serious medical 23 need and fail to adequately respond to need to establish deliberate indifference). 24
Cited 0 timesUnknown(SS) Carpenter v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 8, 2023
On this record, the court cannot say 24 that it is clearly established by the medical evidence that plaintiff lacks a medically severe mental 25 impairment. See Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 425 Fed. … Or. 2014) (“On review, the court must 6 determine whether the ALJ had substantial evidence to find that the medical evidence clearly 7 established that Ms.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna