Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
0.71s
District Court, E.D. California · Sep 27, 2023
The one significant qualifier is that “the remedies must indeed be ‘available’ to the 28 prisoner.” Id. at 639. … No. 40-6 18 at 4). 19 • CDCR policy clearly indicates that the formal administrative grievance process and 20 the Inmate/Parolee Request for
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 9, 2025
All of plaintiff’s claims are clearly brought 22 under California Civil Code statutes. … Oct. 19, 2015) (remanding the 9 case and stating that the FCRA is not one of the federal statutes the Supreme Court has identified 10 that qualify under the complete preemption doctrine); Alan v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 20, 2022
complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 2 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 3 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 7 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 8 490 U.S. at 327.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 20, 2020
a). 1 The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the complaint is frivolous or malicious, 2 fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant 3 who is immune … The ADA defines “qualified individual with a disability” as “an 2 individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or 3 practices, the removal of architectural, communication
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 25, 2024
“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 12 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992)). 9 Deliberate indifference is established only where the defendant subjectively “knows of and 10 disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety.” Toguchi v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 30, 2024
complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner 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 … The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when 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.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 3, 2019
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 28 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 1 from a defendant who is immune … The very obviousness of the risk may suffice to establish the knowledge element. 7 See Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1995).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 1, 2020
There is precedent within the Eastern District of 12 California that dismissal for failure to state a claim at the screening stage of § 1983 prisoner 13 actions may qualify as “judgment on the merits.” See Evans v. … Privity 4 Third, the privity element is clearly met as to the concussion claim.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 27, 2026
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 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 20, 2019
s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to 4 dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 5 or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … is a member of a protected class; (2) he was 8 qualified for his position; (3) he experienced an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Howard v. Medical Care Providers for C.D.C.R.
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 25, 2021
The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 11 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 12 490 U.S. at 327. … A 18 showing of merely negligent medical care is not enough to establish a constitutional violation. 19 Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir. 1998), citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-106.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Cooper v. The AIS Center and Out Patient Surgery
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 25, 2024
portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 3 “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that 4 “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Mere 27 negligence on the part of the prison official is not sufficient to establish liability, but rather, the 28 official’s conduct must have been wanton.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 14, 2026
complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 2 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 3 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 7 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 8 490 U.S. at 327.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Kern v. North Kern State Prison
District Court, E.D. California · Nov 25, 2024
portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 25 “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that 26 “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … CDCR, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 21 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.”). 22 Here, Plaintiff’s allegations, at most, allege negligence by Defendants which is clearly 23
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 7, 2020
even if their dental care violated the Constitution, 20 they are entitled to qualified immunity. 21 Plaintiff contends that he was not experiencing increased pain in tooth #25, and although … County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995). 16 Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See 17 Wood v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 3, 2021
complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 7 “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 8 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 12 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownScoggin v. Turning Point Central California
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 27, 2020
Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required of in forma pauperis 2 proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. … A plaintiff can establish a discrimination claim under a 17 theory of disparate treatment, or disparate impact, or failure to make reasonable 18 accommodations.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 20, 2020
“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 2 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994), the Supreme Court established a very strict 14 standard which a plaintiff must meet in order to establish “deliberate indifference.” Negligence is 15 insufficient.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 5, 2020
Circuit court precedent “may be persuasive in determining 9 what law is clearly established and whether a state court applied that law unreasonably.” Stanley, 10 633 F.3d at 859 (quoting Maxwell v. … Further, where courts of appeals have diverged in their treatment of an issue, it 17 cannot be said that there is “clearly established Federal law” governing that issue.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 13, 2020
“Clearly Established Federal Law” 2 The phrase “clearly established Federal law” in § 2254(d)(1) refers to the “governing 3 legal principle or principles” previously articulated by the Supreme … Only Supreme Court precedent may constitute “clearly established 5 Federal law,” but courts may look to circuit law “to ascertain whether…the particular point in 6 issue is clearly established by Supreme Court precedent
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna