Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.32s
Vinluan-Jularbal v. Redbubble, Inc.
District Court, E.D. California · Sep 21, 2021
qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, 12 and (2) show that that economic injury was the result of, i.e., 13 caused by, the unfair business practice or false advertising 14 that is the … “Thus, if a statute indicates that 2 exclusive enforcement authority shall lie with the government 3 and explicitly precludes private enforcement, or if a statute 4 expressly provides immunity
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 17, 2023
determines that the allegation of poverty 10 is untrue, or that the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which 11 relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … In short, it is unclear to the Court how the alleged conduct by Defendants 12 establishes the claims set forth in Plaintiff’s complaint.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 6, 2022
litigate malicious prosecution. 3 Plaintiff asks for an injunction against use of evidence in his pending criminal case 4 because it was “direct fruits from the poisonous and flagrant official misconduct, which clearly … If a plaintiff cannot 21 establish any one of these three elements, his malicious prosecution action will 22 fail.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 19, 2023
Circuit court precedent “may be persuasive in determining what law is clearly 28 established and whether a state court applied that law unreasonably.” Stanley, 633 F.3d at 859 1 (quoting Maxwell v. … Further, where courts of appeals have diverged in their treatment of an issue, there is no 8 “clearly established federal law” governing that issue. See Carey v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 1, 2022
allege SB 11 1017 is unlawful because: (1) it deprives Plaintiffs of their rights to fish for swordfish with drift 12 gill nets under federal law; (2) is preempted by federal law; and (3) violates the Privileges and 13 Immunities … Plaintiff must “clearly 4 . . . allege facts demonstrating each element.” Spokeo, Inc., 136 S. Ct. at 1547 (internal 5 quotations omitted) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 518 (1975)). 6 B.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 10, 2023
The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where 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. … In an amended complaint plaintiff must clearly identify each 27 defendant and the action that defendant took that violated his constitutional rights.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 14, 2019
Supreme Court precedent is not clearly established law, and therefore federal habeas 4 relief is unavailable, unless it “squarely addresses” an issue. See Moses v. … If a state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established law, it is reviewed to 24 determine first whether it resulted in constitutional error. See Benn v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Vargas v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
District Court, E.D. California · Aug 4, 2020
Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate 4 indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 5 1990). … To establish a claim of deliberate indifference arising from a delay in providing care, a 9 plaintiff must show that the delay was harmful. See Berry v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(SS) Few v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 23, 2021
Webb, 433 F.3d at 688 (emphasis 3 added); see SSR 85-28 (i f a finding of non-severity is not “clearly established by medical 4 evidence,” adjudication must continue through the sequential evaluation process). … Even 1 before accounting for part-time positions, the VE’s testimony only established some 25,400 jobs 2 available to plaintiff nationally (6,900 + 8,300 + 10,200). (AT 57.)
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 1, 2019
The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 23 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 24 from a defendant who is immune … He is advised to avoid using 5 vague and conclusory language of “deliberate indifference” to establish a claim.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 26, 2022
“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 28 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Failure to State a Claim 12 The allegations of the complaint establish that Collinsworth and Liddell responded to the 13 fight.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 30, 2023
Further, where courts of appeals have diverged in their treatment of an issue, there is no 25 “clearly established federal law” governing that issue. See Carey v. … After reviewing the 5 record, this Court concludes that the state court rejection of this claim was not contrary to, or an 6 unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.
Cited 0 timesUnknownEsquivel v. State of California Department of Social Services
District Court, E.D. California · Nov 30, 2022
. § 23.107, and parallel 8 state law, clearly places such a burden on [Defendant].” … qualify as Indian children because neither the 11 parents nor the children belonged to an Indian tribe.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 1, 2024
Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979). 10 “The defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Provincial Gov’t of 11 Marinduque v. … Thus, removal is barred where a “supplementary ... court proceeding does not 6 independently qualify as a removable ‘civil action’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).” Armistead v. C. 7 & M.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 3, 2025
s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous 8 or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 9 relief from a defendant who is immune … In California, imprisonment qualifies as a 22 disability that tolls the statute of limitations for two years when a person is “imprisoned on a 23 criminal charge, or in execution under the sentence of a criminal court
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 13, 2022
For purposes of applying § 2254(d)(1), “clearly established federal law” 17 consists of holdings of the United States Supreme Court at the time of the last reasoned state court 18 decision. Greene v. … Because 28 counsel was not constitutionally ineffective, petitioner cannot establish cause or qualify for the 1 first exception to the procedural bar doctrine. 2 The second exception is fundamental
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 12, 2022
Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 70-71 (2003); 2 Williams, 529 U.S. at 412-413. 3 A state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law “if it applies a rule 4 that … Since there is no clearly established Supreme Court 5 authority requiring a personal waiver of transcription of jury selection, Petitioner’s claim is barred 6 under § 2254(d).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 19, 2022
To 27 establish a violation of this duty, a prisoner must “show that the officials acted with deliberate 28 //// 1 indifference to threat of serious … In an amended complaint plaintiff must clearly identify each 5 defendant and the action that defendant took that violated his constitutional rights.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 12, 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 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 13, 2024
Even gross 26 negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood 27 v. … preliminary injunction that goes beyond maintaining the status quo pendente lite, ‘courts should 5 be extremely cautious’ about issuing a preliminary injunction and should not grant such relief 6 unless the facts and law clearly
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna