Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
3.69s
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 6, 2025
trial on any remaining excessive force or deliberate indifference claim. 21 In light of this determination, and in the interests of judicial economy, the court need not address 22 defendants’ remaining argument based on qualified … immunity. 23 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff filed the operative second amended complaint on May 23, 2022.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 6, 2026
No changed circumstances have been established for motion to reconsider the 12 [immigration court’s] prior custody redetermination decision.” … The record does not show that Petitioners are 22 subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) by reason of having committed a 23 qualifying offense as considered in that statute.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Doe v. State of California
District Court, E.D. California · Dec 20, 2024
Dague, 505 U.S. at 562 (“We have 2 established a ‘strong presumption’ that the lodestar represents the ‘reasonable’ fee ...”). … Unruh, 32 Cal. 3d 621, 632 (1982) (holding that “unless special 20 circumstances would render such an award unjust,” “parties who qualify for a fee should recover 21 for all hours reasonably spent, including those on
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Maraglino v. State of California
District Court, E.D. California · Oct 20, 2020
portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous 27 or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] monetary 28 relief against a defendant who is immune … Lifers qualify to be housed at CIW in two person cells. LWOPs are not. Lifers may 1 work for prison industry authority and joint venture, but LWOPs cannot.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Mundy v. City and County of Sacramento
District Court, E.D. California · Jun 2, 2023
or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 16 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 17 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 21 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 22 490 U.S. at 327.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 24, 2025
Navajo County Ariz. 609 18 F.3d 1011, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2010) (requiring official be subjectively aware of serious medical 19 need and fail to adequately respond to need to establish deliberate indifference). 20 … Specifically, the 19 Court notes that in the complaint, Plaintiff clearly states that on the date in question, CN gas was 20 deployed in 3C Yard, and that the chemicals from it then spread to 3B Yard, where he had been
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 7, 2020
Further, where courts of appeals have diverged in their 22 treatment of an issue, it cannot be said that there is “clearly established Federal law” governing 23 that issue. Carey v. … This court finds 14 no grounds for a determination that the California Court of Appeal’s decision was contrary to or 15 an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 28, 2020
complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 5 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 6 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The plaintiff, as the moving party, bears the burden of 19 establishing the merits of his or her claims. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 26, 2020
complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous 25 or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 26 relief from a defendant who is immune … Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical 25 needs. See Wood v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(HC) Shaw v. High Desert State Prison
District Court, E.D. California · Dec 17, 2019
Only Supreme Court precedent may constitute “clearly established 10 Federal law,” but courts may look to circuit law “to ascertain whether . . . the particular point in 11 issue is clearly established by Supreme Court … The Clearly Established Federal Law 2 To establish a constitutional violation based on ineffective assistance of counsel, a 3 petitioner must show (1) that counsel’s representation fell below
Cited 0 timesUnknownTolefree v. Swift Transportation Co. Inc.
District Court, E.D. California · May 26, 2021
Nonexpert opinions are “helpful” if they assist a trier of fact to clearly understand the 10 witness’s testimony or to determine a fact in issue. Fed. R. Evid. 701(b). … In 8 other words, an employee must show she is a “qualified individual.” Bates v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Nov 21, 2022
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 · Nov 25, 2024
Further, Petitioner does not identify how the state court’s 27 decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. … Governing Federal Law 21 The undersigned reviews the state court’s reasoned decision under the deferential standard 22 of review applying clearly established federal law.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 21, 2020
Plaintiffs’ have offered no argument that their prior attorneys are qualified to 8 opine regarding such issues. … While “punitive damages are available under section 1983,” “state 26 officials sued in their official capacities are immune from punitive damages.” David v. Giurbino, 27 488 F.Supp.2d 1048, 1060 (S.D.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Rodriguez v. United States of America
District Court, E.D. California · Jan 8, 2021
The Court is “not required to accept a non- 27 movant’s version of events when it is ‘clearly contradict[ed]’ by a video in the record and the accuracy of the video is not disputed.” Lehman v. Robinson, 346 F. … “It has long been established, both in tort and 8 criminal law, that the least touching may constitute battery.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Oct 14, 2022
In the alternative, Defendants argue they 9 are entitled to qualified immunity. 10 To succeed on a medical care claim, a plaintiff must establish he had a serious medical 11 … Needs to establish care 17 with another provider who performs surgeries.” Dr. Ndu’s August 28, 2020 request was 18 approved.
Cited 0 timesUnknownEdith Karina Espiritu Comparan v. Warden of the California City Detention Facility, et al.
District Court, E.D. California · May 20, 2026
Id. 1 General shall take into custody any alien who’ is deportable or inadmissible based on a 2 qualifying, enumerated offense.” … Government Interest 8 “[T]he government clearly has a strong interest in preventing aliens from ‘remain[ing] in 9 the United States in violation of our law.’”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 6, 2023
“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 2 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Aug. 11, 2015) (“It is well established that being revealed as a 26 snitch may be sufficient to meet [the objectively serious risk of harm] standard.” (citing Valandingham v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown767 F. Supp. 2d 1069 · District Court, E.D. California · Jan 24, 2011
The mutual protective order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. … Co., 777 F.2d 520, 525 (9th Cir.1985). 80 In over 43 years in jury trials and almost 20 years on the bench, in cases of monumental complexity with exceptionally qualified and experienced counsel, Plaintiffs’ fee request is
Cited 91 timesPublishedDuncan Marc Smith v. Link Snacks, Inc., et al.
District Court, E.D. California · Jul 13, 2026
In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 4 court will (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they 5 are clearly baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations … “To state a cognizable claim for negligence 21 under California law, plaintiff must establish four required elements: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) 22 causation; and (4) damages.” See Cisco Systems, Inc. v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna