Case law

Deerpoint Group, Inc. v. GAR Bennett LLC

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 19, 2023

Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. 8 Designations that are shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose 9 (e.g., to unnecessarily encumber or retard … Except as otherwise provided in this 15 Order or as otherwise stipulated or ordered, discovery material and information that qualify for 16 protection under this Order must be clearly so designated before the material

(PC) Burgos v. Primm

District 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.

Chamber of Commerce of the USA v. Becerra

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

Maas’s statements qualify as lay 12 opinion testimony under Rule of Evidence 701. Mr. … that sovereign immunity will bar later recovery.

(PC) Geyer v. Ferrara

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 30, 2019

complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 22 “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 23 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 2 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v.

Rose v. Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 26, 2024

“By 8 its terms, therefore . . . section 510 does not apply to an 9 employee who is subject to a qualifying CBA.” … CBA from the protections of section 510, claims under 2 section 510 are completely preempted when there is a qualifying 3 CBA.

Soltani v. Blinken

District Court, E.D. California · May 15, 2025

[f]or more than a century, 12 this Court has recognized that the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a 13 ‘fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments 14 largely immune … “The agency action must be pursuant to a legal obligation 3 ‘so clearly set forth that it could traditionally have been enforced through a writ of 4 mandamus.’”

(PC) Witkin v. Thomas

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 23, 2024

allegation of poverty is untrue, that the action is frivolous or 28 malicious, that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or that 1 action seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … by brining non-frivolous 1 claims, Plaintiff seeks to vindicate his rights, which means that there is a plausible 2 reason to bring this suit other than to harm or harass Defendants. 3 Moreover, Plaintiff clearly

Reade v. New York Times Company

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 1, 2022

Section 1798.85 3 does clearly state that a person or entity “may not” publicly 4 post or display an individual’s Social Security number, but it 5 does not contain either any language establishing … Personal identifying 15 information such as a Social Security number, standing alone, 16 clearly does not qualify because it discloses nothing about the 17 individual’s conduct or personal life

(PC) Marti v. Manning

District 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.

(PC) Carroll v. Vallejo Police Department

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 4, 2023

E.g., Farmer, 511 U.S. 21 at 847; Hearns, 413 F.3d at 1040. 22 To establish a violation of this duty, the prisoner must establish that prison officials were 23 “deliberately … the request for appointment of counsel likewise be denied. 28 1 If Plaintiff chooses to file a Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff must clearly

(PC) Greschner v. CDCR

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 23, 2019

List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The Nevada 22 Department of Prisons, as a state agency, clearly was immune from suit under the Eleventh 23 Amendment.”) (citing Pennhurst State School and Hosp. v. … The same linkage requirement applies to 10 potential supervisorial defendants, who are only liable if personally involved in the alleged 11 constitutional violation or if the factual allegations establish a “sufficient

(PC) Holland v. Torres

District 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

(PC) Montgomery v. Wong

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 12, 2020

To establish a claim of deliberate indifference arising from a delay in providing care, a 7 plaintiff must show that the delay was harmful. See Berry v. … The amended complaint should be 14 clearly titled, in bold font, “First Amended Complaint,” reference the appropriate case number, 15 and be an original signed under penalty of perjury.

Castro v. Clovis Unified School District

District Court, E.D. California · May 24, 2022

Here, plaintiff’s speech falls even more clearly within the reach of school regulation considering that the conduct took place on- 28 campus. … Thus, the evidence on summary judgment clearly establishes that 5 plaintiff was on notice both that his actions violated school policy and could result in him losing 6 the privilege to walk at graduation.

(HC) Montenegro v. Asuncion

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 29, 2020

. . . recent 20 decisions”; otherwise, there is no clearly established Federal law for purposes of review under 21 AEDPA and the Court must defer to the state court’s decision. … must consider whether the state court’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an 26 unreasonable application of, [the] clearly established Federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

(SS)(PS) Jameson v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

This appears to 6 be a disagreement between the parties over whether the suspension of benefits was because 7 Plaintiff did not qualify in those months because his countable resources exceeded the limits 8 under 20 … C.F.R. § 416.202(d) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.1205; or whether, as Plaintiff seems to 9 contend, the suspension was to collect on past overpayment. 10 Regardless of whether the principles in Courtney established

(PC) Vallery v. Degallegos

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 7, 2019

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 … established state procedure.

Andrews

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 11, 2025

“Section 1226(a), therefore, establishes a discretionary detention 14 framework.” Lopez Benitez, 2025 WL 2371588, at *3 (internal citations omitted). … “Such an undefined and subjective 28 standard clearly creates a likelihood of arbitrary and capricious application.” Herrera, 2025 WL 1 2581792, at *10.

(PC) Davis v. Agundez

District Court, E.D. California · May 20, 2021

His only 26 allegation with respect to Chavez is that the officer “stated what he saw was the truth and clearly 27 he lied.” (Id. at 4.) … “An authorized deprivation is one carried 9 out pursuant to established state procedures, regulations, or statutes.” Christ, 2013 WL 127737, at 10 *3 (citing Logan v.

LPOD, Inc. v. Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals LLC

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 2025

Under California law, a material may qualify as “retrograde material” if it is “banned by 8 law, regulation, ordinance, or decree.” Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25121.5. … The prior discovery documents plaintiffs now point to did not clearly and 3 || unequivocally make any such allegation.