Case law

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Barclays Bank PLC

105 F. Supp. 3d 1121 · District Court, E.D. California · May 22, 2015

Accordingly, to the extent the Court relies upon a particular exhibit for a fact or statement contained therein in support of the Court’s ruling, it will be stated clearly and separately in the course of this Order. … The parties also agree that ICE ECM was an exempt commercial market qualifying under section 2(h)(3). (ECF No. 65 at 17; ECF No. 44 at 7, n. 4.)

(PC) Mekhtarian v. Ortega

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 16, 2023

A showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a 19 constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.” Toguchi v. … Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish 4 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v.

(HC) Monica McCarrick v. Espinoza

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 19, 2020

The Supreme Court has explained that “clearly established Federal law” in § 2254(d)(1) “refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme Court] as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” … Where holdings of the Supreme Court regarding the issue presented on habeas review are lacking, “it cannot be said that the state court ‘unreasonabl[y] appli[ed] clearly established Federal law.’” Carey v.

(PC) Gardner v. Newsom

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

California 11 Dept. of Corrections, 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding CDCR as agency of State of 12 California enjoys immunity from suit conferred by the Eleventh Amendment). … established that “inmates lack a separate 13 constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.”

(PC) White v. Krantz

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 21, 2022

Plaintiff has clearly not done so in his 1AC. … Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 725 n.13, 125 28 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed. 1020 (2005) (overruling Establishment Clause to RLUIPA).

Predybaylo v. Sacramento County, California

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

27 15 Because the Court finds no constitutional violation, it is also unnecessary to reach the derivative 28 issue of qualified … immunity. 1 B.

Stokes v. Hanford Police Dept.

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 16, 2025

determines that the allegation of poverty 28 is untrue, or that the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which 1 relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … complaint states cognizable claims, the Court’s duty is to evaluate the complaint’s factual 22 allegations, not to wade through exhibits. 23 The amended complaint should be clearly

(PS) Crago v. Lynn

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 13, 2020

IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 24 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court will 28 (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly 1 baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations

(HC) Harrell v. Hill

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 4, 2021

Id. 15 A state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if it applies a rule 16 contradicting a holding of the Supreme Court or reaches a result different … In this regard, a federal habeas court “may not issue the writ simply 23 because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision 24 applied clearly established federal law erroneously

(PC) Foust v. Warden

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 10, 2023

identify 23 any cognizable claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, 24 fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant 25 who is immune … Nonetheless, while the court has clearly 2 stated that one of the “basic elements” of a First Amendment retaliation claim is that the adverse 3 action “chilled the inmates exercise of his First Amendment rights,” id.

(PC) O'Brien v. Diaz

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

evidence that Defendants did not 27 reasonably believe that Plaintiff’s conduct violated Title 15, section 3004(b) or that Defendants 1 violated a clearly-established … In the 7 alternative, Defendants are they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claim. 8 In opposition, Plaintiff argues genuine issues of disputed fact exists as to the motivation 9 and legitimate penological

California State Grange v. National Marine Fisheries Service

620 F. Supp. 2d 1111 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 31, 2008

Federal Defendants maintain that a preponderance of record evidence establishes that the anadromous and resident behaviors of O. mykiss are more clearly defined than the migratory behaviors in bull trout and coastal cutthroat … Campton repeatedly qualifies his opinions. 36 . Polymorphism is not defined in the RSRP.

(PC) Cunningham v. Barragas

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 12, 2024

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 … Dillard, 744 F.3d 7 1076, 1087 (9th Cir. 2014) (failure to follow procedures is not, of itself, enough to establish a 8 violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights); see, e.g., Langford v.

Hoyt v. Walmart, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 21, 2023

Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, 553 21 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A defendant seeking removal has the burden to establish that 22 removal is proper and any doubt is resolved against removability.”) … Moreover, unfiled deposition transcripts and responses to interrogatories 14 qualify as “other paper” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §1446(b). Id.; Jordan v.

(SS) Sutton v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 8, 2022

The plaintiff bears the burden of proof at step 2 two to show that an impairment qualifies as severe. Bowen, 482 U.S. at 146 n.5. 3 B. … 22 Recently, the Ninth Circuit has issued the following guidance regarding treatment of 23 physicians’ opinions after implementation of the revised regulations: 24 The revised social security regulations are clearly

(PC)Stevenson v. Holland

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 1, 2020

Qualified 24 Defendants’ contention that Fulks is not qualified is not compelling. … To start, Pedersen is qualified.

(SS) Sandoval v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 25, 2025

A 12 claimant establishes a prima facie case of qualifying disability once she has carried the burden of 13 … consistently presented as cooperative at 27 4 As Plaintiff seemingly acknowledges, and the Commissioner agrees, the Court finds that the ALJ clearly

(PC) Stith v. State of California

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 29, 2023

or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 5 legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 6 that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … In the event a defendant establishes that an inmate-plaintiff has failed to fully 28 comply with the administrative exhaustion process prior to commencing an action in federal 1 court, the plaintiff’s complaint is subject

Lipsey v. State of California

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 29, 2023

or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 5 legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 6 that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … In the event a defendant establishes that an inmate-plaintiff has failed to fully 28 comply with the administrative exhaustion process prior to commencing an action in federal 1 court, the plaintiff’s complaint is subject

(PC) McKenna v. Cisneros

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 25, 2022

The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 5 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 6 490 U.S. at 327. … The plaintiff, as the moving party, bears the burden of 14 establishing the merits of his or her claims. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.