Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.55s
District Court, E.D. California · Nov 13, 2023
§ 2241, asserting that his prior Missouri drug convictions are not 10 qualifying predicates for § 851 enhancement under Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016), 11 and Descamps v. … “An intervening court decision must ‘effect a material 9 change in the applicable law’ to establish unavailability.” Alaimalo v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 30, 2022
The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 24 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 25 490 U.S. at 327. … Mere 24 negligence on the part of the prison official is not sufficient to establish liability, but rather, the 25 official’s conduct must have been wanton.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · May 13, 2020
established Federal law, as 3 determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or 4 (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of … Vasquez, 868 F.2d 1116, 24 1118-19 (9th Cir. 1989) (declining to address “[w]hether assault with a deadly weapon qualifies 25 as a ‘serious felony’ under California’s sentence enhancement provisions [because it] is a
Cited 0 timesUnknownHickcox v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC
District Court, E.D. California · Feb 29, 2024
However, the partie s dispute what qualifies as a “windstorm.” 5 (Id. at 2–3.) Plaintiff contends the CFP policy would cover the Loss if “the cause is wind, 6 whether or not there is precipitation.” (Id.) … Id. at 251–52. 4 In the endeavor to establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not 5 establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Sep 3, 2019
complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 7 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 8 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … That an official “should have been aware” of a 24 particular risk to an inmate, but was not, does not establish an Eighth Amendment violation “no 25 matter how severe the risk.” Peralta v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PC) Martinez v. Secretary of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
District Court, E.D. California · Dec 17, 2024
PLAINTIFF'S PRIOR STRIKES 5 A review of court records reveals that at least three cases brought by Plaintiff qualify as 6 strikes under Section 1915(g). … The dispositive order in this case clearly indicates that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was also denied 20 because Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 6, 2025
Such qualifying language is notably 1 twelve months. … Here, the Respondents’ harm is clearly minimal, as they 28 have no discretion to ignore the Congressional directive issued in section 1 3632(d)(4)(C).
Cited 0 timesUnknownWilliam Ray v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, E.D. California · Jun 26, 2026
Oberto, United States 24 25 1 Disabled child’s insurance benefits are paid to the qualified “child . . . of an individual entitled to old-age or disability … (“But, having clearly 22 stated that he was according Dr. Stafford’s opinion great weight, the ALJ was under an obligation 23 to account for the moderate limitations Dr.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(SS) White v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, E.D. California · Jun 13, 2023
Sec’y of 6 Health and Human Servs., 812 F.2d 509, 510 (9th Cir. 1987). 7 REVIEW 8 In order to qualify for benefits, a claimant must establish … The 15 burden is on the claimant to establish disability. Terry v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 13, 2023
//// 1 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 2 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … In addition, there must be probative evidence to establish a crucial link in 22 the logical chain required to support retaliation; timing alone is insufficient.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(SS) Rivas v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, E.D. California · May 10, 2023
Sec’y of 20 Health and Human Servs., 812 F.2d 509, 510 (9th Cir. 1987). 21 REVIEW 22 In order to qualify for benefits, a claimant must establish … The 1 burden is on the claimant to establish disability. Terry v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 13, 2023
adequately to 8 investigate and develop evidence of petitioner’s medical, educational, and detention records, and 9 thereupon to support his state habeas Atkins claim with the state law requisite declaration by a 10 qualified … Claim 1 9 seeks the benefit of a clearly established federal law that prohibits capital punishment if petitioner 10 is determined to be intellectually disabled. See Atkins, 536 U.S. at 319-20; Hall v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 28, 2021
Legal Standard 14 The law on sufficiency of the evidence is clearly established. Pursuant to the United 15 States Supreme Court’s holding in Jackson v. … Given that there is no clearly 16 established Federal law in this instance, the Court cannot grant relief, since habeas relief is 17 triggered only when the state court adjudication runs afoul of clearly established
Cited 0 timesUnknownOleksandr V.M. v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility
District Court, E.D. California · Jan 27, 2026
Government’s Interest 4 With respect to the third and final factor, the Court recognizes that “the government 5 clearly has a strong interest in preventing aliens from ‘remain … Feb. 13, 2018) (“The Court finds the IJ is 20 uniquely qualified and situated to make neutral administrative determinations about Petitioner’s 21 eligibility for release on bond and/or placement in a supervised release
Cited 0 timesUnknownFoster v. Division of Adult Parole Operations
District Court, E.D. California · Jun 4, 2021
Summary 10 judgment must be entered “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the 11 existence of an element essential to that party’s case....” Celotex Corp. v. … Id. 21 Further, the plaintiff “made no effort to qualify these responses to explain how Plaintiff was able 22 to support his most basic needs for survival.” Id.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Dec 23, 2022
complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous 22 or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 23 relief from a defendant who is immune … Mere negligence on the 5 part of a prison official is not sufficient to establish liability, but rather, the official’s conduct 6 must have been wanton. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835; Frost v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 17, 2023
The 16 Court will bar use of the evidence in question only if the moving party establishes that the 17 evidence clearly is not admissible for any valid purpose. … Rule 20 702 governs opinion testimony of a witness qualified as an expert based on his or her 21 “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Fed. R.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 9, 2026
Plaintiffs have not cited any provisions in the contract between Freedom and the 3 Plaintiffs setting forth the obligations Freedom allegedly breached. 4 • The FCRA contains an “absolute immunity … Clearly, this does not establish “the alleged violation affected a plaintiff’s loan obligations or the modification process.” . . .
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 17, 2023
The 14 very obviousness of the risk may suffice to establish the knowledge element. See Wallis v. 15 Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1995). … A prison official’s denial of an inmate appeal does 19 not qualify as a constitutional violation. See id.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 9, 2023
Gov't Code § 950.2 (“This section is applicable even 22 though the public entity is immune from liability for the injury.”).4 3F 23 “In … A court may consider defenses on a 12(b)(6) motion only “when 21 the face of the complaint clearly reveals the existence of a meritorious affirmative defense.”
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna