Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
0.91s
District Court, E.D. California · Aug 23, 2023
thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 26 “frivolous or malicious,” that “fail[] to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that 27 “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Had [the dentist] gratuitously drilled plaintiff's teeth for no good medical reason, then the evidence would 18 clearly support a finding of willful and wanton infliction of pain and plaintiff would have
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 19, 2020
or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 19 legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 20 that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9. 23 To establish a failure to protect claim, the prisoner must establish that prison officials 24 were deliberately indifferent to a sufficiently serious
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 10, 2021
plaintiff must show that (1) [he] is a qualified 7 individual with a disability; (2) [he] was excluded from participation in or otherwise 8 discriminated against with regard to a public entity’s services, … To show discriminatory intent, a plaintiff must establish deliberate indifference by the 13 public entity. Duvall v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Cabrera v. CA Correctional Health Care Services
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 24, 2022
Therefore, Plaintiff is granted 6 leave nunc pro tunc to file the First Amended Complaint. 7 It is well-established that “an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint and 8 renders the … Plaintiff’s “fil[ing] [of] an amended complaint . . . could qualify as affirmative 18 conduct or unequivocal assent to federal jurisdiction. Hunsicker v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 19 Case No.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 19, 2024
Where, as here, a case is at the pleading stage, the plaintiff must 13 “clearly . . . allege facts demonstrating” each element. Id. (citing Warth v. … handicapped within the meaning of the RA; (2)[he] is otherwise qualified for the benefit or 4 services sought; (3)[he] was denied the benefit
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Nov 19, 2020
Further, where courts of appeals have diverged in their 15 treatment of an issue, it cannot be said that there is “clearly established Federal law” governing 16 that issue. Carey v. … Was the State Court’s Opinion Contrary to or an Unreasonable Application of 21 Clearly Established Federal Law or Based on an Unreasonable Determination of the Facts?
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 13, 2022
Woodall, 572 U.S. 415, 419 (2014). 9 “Clearly established federal law” consists of the governing legal principles in the 10 decisions of the United States Supreme Court when the state court issued its decision. … established federal law. 17 Because the appellate court’s rejection of Pierce’s claim was not an unreasonable 18 application of clearly established federal law as set forth by the Supreme Court nor based on an
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 5, 2025
any cognizable claims and 7 dismiss the complaint, or any portion, if is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon 8 which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Generally, a plaintiff “must clearly state the policies upon which their claim is 28 based and then allege how that policy leads to municipal liability in this case.” City of Fontana, 1 2017 WL 10545379, at *6.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Black v. Siskiyou County Jail
District Court, E.D. California · Mar 28, 2023
“[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 12 theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. … Navarro v. 17 Block, 72 F.3d 712, 714 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Proof of random acts or isolated events is insufficient 18 to establish custom.” (citation omitted)).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 25, 2023
Under the language of AB 2089, to 13 qualify as “misinformation,” the information must be 14 “contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to 15 the standard of care.” … Non-Merits Factors 6 In addition to establishing a likelihood of success on 7 the merits, plaintiffs must establish that they are likely to 8 suffer
Cited 0 timesUnknownUnited States v. Sunny Cove Citrus Ass'n
854 F. Supp. 669 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 18, 1994
One of the primary objectives of the AMAA is to establish and maintain parity prices for farmers. Id. at 830; see also Schepps Dairy Inc. v. … There was no evidence sufficient in the record to establish departmental practices before 1979.
Cited 3 timesPublishedMazariegos Koosemans v. Siskiyou Joint Community College
District Court, E.D. California · Aug 23, 2021
In opposition, Plaintiff asserts the factual statement 5 contained in his EEOC complaint “clearly includes race as a basis of discrimination” as it states: 6 “In addition, the new interim Dean of Instruction made … “To accomplish this, the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of 14 admissible evidence, the reasons for” the challenged adverse employment actions.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 29, 2026
Sept. 5, 2025) (“Such 23 an undefined and subjective standard clearly creates a likelihood of arbitrary and capricious 24 application.”). … “Such an undefined and subjective standard clearly creates a likelihood of ‘arbitrary and capricious application.” 18 Herrera, 2025 WL 2581792, at *10.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 25, 2023
Under the language of AB 2089, to 13 qualify as “misinformation,” the information must be 14 “contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to 15 the standard of care.” … Non-Merits Factors 6 In addition to establishing a likelihood of success on 7 the merits, plaintiffs must establish that they are likely to 8 suffer
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Nov 17, 2025
The “common law governmental privilege (encompassing and referred to sometimes as the official 21 or state secret privilege) . . . is only a qualified … particular portions of any pleading, affidavit, deposition, interrogatory 22 answer, admission, or other document relied upon to establish
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Nov 28, 2022
7 forbidden by “clearly established Federal law,” as laid out by the Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C … Statements given to 11 police during interrogations qualify as “testimonial.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jul 19, 2023
5 “If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to 6 one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly … Evid. 701. 9 As a non-expert witness, Plaintiff is not qualified to offer any expert opinions in this case 10 concerning any alleged physical injuries, including purported causes, diagnoses and prognoses. 11
Cited 0 timesUnknownJordan Braun v. St. George University School of Medicine
District Court, E.D. California · Feb 23, 2026
In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the 27 court will (1) accept as true all the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are 28 clearly baseless or fanciful; (2) construe those allegations … A plaintiff seeking a TRO must generally establish all four of the 22 following elements: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits of his underlying case; (2) he is 23 likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 20, 2019
Gov’t Code § 23 12940(a)(2). 24 The burden shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. … Covenant Care, Inc., 99 Cal.App.4th 1361, 1372 (2002)) 26 (“[T]ermination of an employee most clearly violates public policy when it contravenes the 27 provision of a statute forbidding termination for a specified
Cited 0 timesUnknownLuis Reyes Gutierrez v. Warden of the Golden State Annex ICE Detention Facility, et al.
District Court, E.D. California · May 12, 2026
Id. 16 “Subsection C provides for the detention of ‘criminal aliens’ and states that ‘[t]he Attorney 17 General shall take into custody any alien who’ is deportable or inadmissible based on a 18 qualifying … Further, Petitioner does not establish “the probable value, if any” of an 4 additional bond hearing. Mathews, 424 U.S. at 334.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna