Case law

Jose G. M. L. v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 19, 2026

Thus, Petitioner has sufficiently 12 established irreparable harm. 13 C. … Any burden imposed by requiring Respondents to comply 25 with constitutionally required process is both de minimis and clearly outweighed by the 26 substantial harm Petitioner will suffer if he continues to be detained

(PC) Hankins v. Sacramento County

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 17, 2025

F.3d 1134, 1144 (9th Cir. 2021). 24 Municipalities cannot be held vicariously liable under § 1983 for the actions of their 25 1 Liberally construing the FAC, the court infers from its caption and clearly … Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack 26 of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that 27 would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel

(PC)Lopez v. CDC Director

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 20, 2023

“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 12 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Schriro, 3 514 F.3d 878, 889 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Once the plaintiff establishes that the challenged state action 4 substantially burdens his religious exercise, the government bears the burden of establishing that 5 the

Assoc. for Accessible Medicines v. Becerra

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 9, 2021

however, a statute only has indirect effects on interstate commerce and regulates evenhandedly, 15 [the Court has] examined whether the [s]tate’s interest is legitimate and whether the burden on 16 interstate commerce clearly … Plaintiff asserts this economic injury constitutes irreparable 3 injury due to the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. (Id.)

Beltran v. Waste Management, Inc

District Court, E.D. California · May 21, 2025

Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1227 (9th Cir. 2019). 13 Judgment under Rule 12(c) “is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the 14 face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved … “[A] ‘lack of definitive authority does not, as a matter of 16 law, immunize [a party] from potential liability’ for statutory damages” under FCRA. Syed, 853 17 F.3d at 504 (quoting Cortez v.

(PC) Lewis v. United States of America

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 16, 2020

or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 20 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 21 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … He does not allege 2 that any medical advice or literature establishes that his symptoms are consistent with water 3 contamination.

Cravotta v. County of Sacramento

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 26, 2025

Here, Plaintiff’s allegations do not clearly indicate that he 19 was a danger to himself or others, or that his placement in OPP housing would 20 dangerously deteriorate his mental state. … However, this is 4 insufficient to establish deliberate indifference.

(SS) Shields v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

Or. 2014) (“On review, the court must 20 determine whether the ALJ had substantial evidence to find that the medical evidence clearly 21 established that Ms. … (Id. at 21.) 5 Under these circumstances, the court cannot find that the ALJ’s step two finding was 6 clearly established by medical evidence or free from error.

Jones

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 6, 2026

The plaintiff 10 bears the burden to establish both causation-in-fact and proximate (i.e., legal) causation. See 11 Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008). … CDCR is an agency of the State of California 16 and, as such, enjoys immunity from suit under the 11th Amendment. Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of 17 Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009).

(PC) Witkin v. Thomas

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 28, 2023

forma pauperis 3 proceeding, and mut order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a 4 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 5 immune … The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless 9 legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.

Sierra Club v. Babbitt

69 F. Supp. 2d 1202 · District Court, E.D. California · Jul 12, 1999

This is clearly distinguishable from the present case. In light of the above, the court finds that neither stare decisis nor issue preclusion apply to prevent Plaintiffs from litigating the present action. … Absent a qualifying “Management Plan,” Defendants’ determination that their actions were within the -bounds of the “varying degrees of protection” allowed by statute is, again, a mere post-hoc justification of project outcomes

Zargarian v. Oudkirk

District Court, E.D. California · May 1, 2025

(Id.) 3 In July 2009, plaintiff properly filed with United States Citizenship and Immigration 4 Service (“USCIS”) an I-130 form seeking to establish a qualifying relationship with his sister 5 who lives in Iran … In his opposition, plaintiff argues that such a “refusal” 19 does not qualify as a final consular decision. (Doc.

(PC) Warzek v. Onyeje

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

Defendants further argue that they 26 are entitled to qualified immunity. 27 In opposition, Plaintiff argues that GERD and Barrett’s are not food sensitives but rather 28 medical … However, Plaintiff does not qualify for any of 20 those diets.

Gonzalez v. NCI Group, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 6, 2020

The parties cannot “agree to 23 certify a class that clearly leaves any one requirement unfulfilled,” and consequently a court 24 cannot blindly rely on the fact that the parties have stipulated that a class exists for … The requirement is satisfied if a plaintiff establishes that a “common 21 nucleus of facts and potential legal remedies dominates the litigation.”

(SS) Desylva v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 7, 2024

A 7 claimant establishes a prima facie case of qualifying disability once she has carried the burden of 8 proof from step one through step four. 9 Before making the step four determination … Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153 (1999) (comparing the substantial-evidence standard to the deferential 16 clearly erroneous standard). “[T]he threshold for such evidentiary sufficiency is not high.” Biestek, 17 139 S.

Wallace v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

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

It was 12 clearly under the impression that its original loan modification 13 agreement was in effect. … Plaintiff argues Defendants 11 cannot establish fraud because there was no misrepresentation. 12 Pl.’s Mot. at 9–11.

(PC) Gray v. Clark

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 7, 2023

The 19 Court will bar use of the evidence in question only if the moving party establishes that the 20 evidence clearly is not admissible for any valid purpose. … The Ninth Circuit has suggested that 4 only statements that confirm the conviction qualifies as a Rule 609 felony are admissible.

Kurdi v. California Department of Transportation

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 18, 2023

23 or Congress abrogates that immunity. … Finally, neither party argues that Caltrans does not qualify as an “employer” under Title VII.

Lujano Gonzalez v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 10, 2020

He or she may also petition for certain qualifying 8 relatives. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U)(ii). 9 B. … be in the discretion of the 25 Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security . . . .” 26 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). 27 Section 1184(p)(6) clearly

Terry v. Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 1, 2024

Plaintiffs 8 move for partial summary judgment on their remedies, including damages to eight newly 9 discovered tenants who qualify as members of the class. See Mot. Summ. J. … The California Civil Code provides, “[n]o damages can be 20 recovered for a breach of contract which are not clearly ascertainable in both their nature and 21 origin.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3301.