Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
0.85s
343 F. Supp. 3d 938 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 26, 2018
The interviewing officer told Plaintiffs that they were otherwise eligible for naturalization "but for the fact that USCIS believed that the marriage leading to their qualifying relationship was a sham." Id. … While the Court here denies the motion to remand, § 1447(b) clearly provides a basis for the Defendants' motion.
Cited 7 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Nov 7, 2023
Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1197 (9th Cir. 2000) (‘In the 21 simplest and most absolute of terms . . . prisoners [have a clearly established Eighth Amendment 22 right] to be free from sexual abuse. . . .’); see also Women … Here, Plaintiff does not clearly 7 allege that any defendant physically touched her in a sexual manner. Somers v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 3, 2019
He cannot simply continue to raise it after it has been clearly rejected. United 18 States v. Taglia, 922 F.2d 4l3, 418 (7th Cir. 1991). … § 2255 motion, and therefore, he has failed to demonstrate that he has not 7 had an unobstructed procedural opportunity to present his claims. 8 Second, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that his claims qualify
Cited 0 timesUnknownPacific Rivers Council v. United States Forest Service
942 F. Supp. 2d 1014 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 29, 2013
PRC falls well short of demonstrating that its members will suffer an injury-in-fact justifying such broad injunctive relief, and the equities clearly weigh in favor of allowing decisions made under the 2004 Framework to … While PRC may not have been required to identify specific projects impacting its interests to establish its initial standing to challenge the 2004 Framework, see PRC, 689 F.3d at 1020-24 , it must do so to establish its entitlement
Cited 10 timesPublishedHome Builders Ass'n v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service
268 F. Supp. 2d 1197 · District Court, E.D. California · May 9, 2003
Instead of utilizing the clearly established administrative procedures for amending or revising a rule, the Service, finding itself in a litigation posture, has conceded that the rule was not promulgated in compliance with … In this case, in the Final Rule establishing the critical habitat for the Alameda whips-nake, the Service designates all the critical habitat lands as occupied by the snake. 2 .
Abrogated in part, on other grounds by Home Builders Ass'n v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service, 616 F.3d 983 (2010)Cited 13 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 27, 2025
(3) If such 5 information has been disclosed to persons not qualified pursuant to paragraph(s) (14-15) below, the 6 party who disclosed such information shall (a) take reasonable efforts to retrieve previously disclosed … This includes secure data storage systems, established security policies, 12 and security training for employees, contractors and experts.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 31, 2020
Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1197 (9th Cir. 2000)) (“In the simplest and most absolute of terms ... 19 prisoners [have a clearly established Eighth Amendment right] to be free from sexual abuse....”). 20 “[S]exual contact … Failure to Protect 20 To establish a failure to protect claim, the prisoner must establish that prison officials 21 were deliberately indifferent to a sufficiently serious threat
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 9, 2020
“[E]ven gross negligence is insufficient to establish a 22 constitutional violation.” Id. (citing Wood v. … Prisoners “clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment . . . .”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Nov 3, 2021
In most cases, 15 the issue in habeas is whether the state courts interpreted federal law on a substantive issue in 16 violation of clearly established law announced by the United States Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 17 … It did appear that the request may well have been one for immunity from prosecution, or at least not going to state prison at all, as opposed to a 28 specific plea offer involving state prison.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 24, 2026
This means that the applicant is qualified “to apply 13 formally for an immigrant visa.” Id. … “The 22 agency action must be pursuant to a legal obligation ‘so clearly set forth that it could traditionally 23 have been enforced through a writ of mandamus.’”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 17, 2020
portion 21 thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state 22 a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is 23 immune … The amended complaint should be clearly titled, in 11 bold font, “First Amended Complaint,” reference the appropriate case number, and be an original 12 signed under penalty of perjury.
Cited 0 timesUnknownWheat v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.
District Court, E.D. California · May 12, 2025
“‘[T]he defendant 16 must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence,’ reasons for its actions 17 … The Parties Do Not Dispute that Plaintiff was a Qualified Individual 19 The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff was a qualified individual for the purposes of the 20 disability discrimination prima facie case.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 10, 2023
Thus, to 14 comply with Rule 8, a complaint should clearly and fully set forth “who is being sued, for what 15 relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery.” Id. … More importantly, however, Plaintiff has not established he possesses standing 11 to bring any claim arising from the wrongful death of Mr. Lowe. See Cal. Code Civ.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 4, 2023
complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 1 “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[] 2 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 6 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownScott v. Adventist Health Bakersfield
District Court, E.D. California · Feb 15, 2024
a ... policymaker possessed 4 with final authority to establish that policy.” … “There is no general liberty interest in being free from capricious government 1 faith, Plaintiff should clearly state the pertinent factual allegations and the basis for relief.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 14, 2021
“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 12 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Rather, deliberate indifference is established only where the 24 defendant subjectively knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety. 25 Toguchi v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 3, 2026
2)(B), federal courts must 22 screen in forma pauperis complaints and dismiss any case that is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to 23 state a claim on which relief may be granted” or seeks monetary relief against an immune … A plaintiff need not show intentional 21 discrimination to establish an ADA violation. Lentini v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownEdwards v. Department of Human Services
District Court, E.D. California · Dec 14, 2021
The burden of establishing jurisdiction rests upon plaintiff as the party 14 asserting jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377; see also Hagans v. … To remedy these problems, Plaintiff needs to “clearly identify the claims that she 19 wishes to pursue and provide succinct and coherent factual allegations supporting each claim.” Id. 20 B.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 29, 2022
Further, where courts of appeals have diverged in their treatment 25 of an issue, it cannot be said that there is “clearly established Federal law” governing that issue. 26 Carey v. … Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), to succeed on his claim, petitioner must also establish 11 that the Court of Appeal’s denial of his claim was contrary to or an unreasonable application of 12 clearly established federal law
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Villalobos v. Tiggs-Brown, P.A
District Court, E.D. California · Apr 15, 2021
Plaintiff is not qualified as a medical expert pursuant to 13 Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and therefore his non-expert testimony is limited to statements … “(a) 14 rationally based on the witness's perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness's 15
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna