Case law

(PC) Benson v. Dowbak

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 23, 2022

“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 2 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … An authorized deprivation is one carried out pursuant to established 5 state procedures, regulations, or statutes. Piatt v.

Chavez

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 13, 2025

s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous 7 or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 8 relief from a defendant who is immune … Cty. of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995). 10 Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. 11 See Wood v.

(PS) Lintvelt v. Snyder

District Court, E.D. California · May 6, 2024

Plaintiff 16 has the burden to establish he is entitled to any further tolling of the statute of limitations, 17 and he has not met this burden. See Brown v. Collins, 848 F. … Further, federal courts 10 are courts of limited jurisdiction and Plaintiff fails to meet his burden to establish 11 jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.

(PC) Uhuru v. Eldridge

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 25, 2020

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where 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. … Inmates have no federal constitutional right to particular 1 procedures established by state law. Toussaint v.

Lewis v. Moralez

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 26, 2022

Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the 8 jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly 26 titled “First Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original

(PC) Love v. Hill

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 12, 2022

complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 9 “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 10 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 14 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v.

(HC) Ward v. Peery

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 19, 2024

Further, 4 where courts of appeals have diverged in their treatment of an issue, there is no “clearly 5 established federal law” governing that issue. See Carey v. … Smith, 565 U.S. 1, 8 n.* (2011), demonstrates that the core of 12 petitioner’s claim is contradicted by clearly established precedent. (ECF No. 10 at 13 n.3.)

(PC) Black v. Thompson

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 5, 2022

dismiss the complaint, or any portion 15 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 16 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The plaintiff must first 1 establish a “serious medical need” by showing that “failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could 2 result in further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’”

(PC) Holguin v. Madera County Jail Captain 2015

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 30, 2022

or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 28 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 1 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … However, an inmate alleging denial of access to the 2 court cannot establish a claim simply by establishing the law library or legal assistance is subpar 3 in a theoretical sense. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351.

(PC) Browning v. Burkhart

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 26, 2023

or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 14 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 15 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … To support that claim, 11 you will have to clearly identify the actions each defendant took that violated your rights, and 12 facts that show each defendant’s state of mind at the time.

Eriksson, LLC v. Loveland Products, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 22, 2020

The court is unpersuaded by these arguments. 27 First, as a factual matter, public filings with the California Secretary of State clearly 28 indicate that Eriksson is a member-managed LLC, (Doc. No. 8-2, Ex. … See, e.g., Gordon, 2013 WL 571814, at *1 (rejecting successive removal based on post-remand deposition that established the plaintiff’ s 26 | citizenship); Azarbarzin v.

Hillman v. PacifiCorp

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 28, 2022

“The party 15 invoking the removal statute bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.” 16 Ethridge v. … “The party 27 invoking the removal statute bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.” 28 Ethridge, 861 F.2d at 1393 (internal citations omitted).

Schmuckley v. Rite Aid Corporation

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 14, 2020

As to the sampling methodology itself, plaintiffs contend its validity is 25 based on its clearly stated objective and the statistically verified methods used in alignment with 26 that objective, including the use of … As plaintiffs argue, stratified random 9 sampling is an established and oft-used sampling technique. See U.S. ex rel. Martin v. Life Care 10 Centers of Am., Inc.

Decker

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 19, 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 … An authorized deprivation is one 4 carried out pursuant to established state procedures, regulations, or statutes. Piatt v. McDougall, 5 773 F.2d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Knudson v.

(PC) Williams v. Allison

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 17, 2023

McSee in support of 12 Defendant’s assertion of the official information privilege merely acknowledges the existence of 13 the evidence he seeks, and establishes the possession and control of such evidence, which 14 … Official Information Privilege 14 Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege for official information. Kerr v. 15 U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N.

Fulfer v. WinCo Holdings, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 25, 2019

This latter form quite 22 clearly stated that Plaintiff was “unable to perform any one or more of the essential functions of 23 [his] position.” (ECF No. 32 at 263.) … Courts are to construe these administrative 27 exhaustion requirements liberally so as to accomplish FEHA’s purposes, which clearly include 28 eliminating discrimination in employment.

Lewis v. IRS

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 3, 2021

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon 17 which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The CARES Act did not establish a private right of action to dispute the IRS’s determination of an individual’s eligibility for the EIP.”); Walters v.

(PC) Cortinas v. Neel

District Court, E.D. California · May 17, 2022

complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 8 “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 9 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 13 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v.

(HC) Watkins v. Hixson

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 20, 2025

The focus of the latter inquiry is on whether the state court’s 25 application of clearly established federal law is objectively unreasonable, and we stressed in Williams [v. … Petitioner fails to point 21 to anything suggesting that the Court of Appeal’s application of the legal principles concerning 22 cross examination articulated in Van Arsdall is unreasonable or contrary to clearly established

Petersen v. Sims

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 2, 2020

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 28 1 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The basis of a Bivens action is some 19 illegal or inappropriate conduct on the part of a federal official or agent that violates a clearly 20 established constitutional right. Baiser v.