Case law

(SS) Sanchez v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 7, 2019

. §§ 404.1520 (a)-(f) and 416.920(a)-(f). 8 9 To qualify for benefits, the claimant must establish the inability to engage in 10 … Claimant 15 was speaking clearly and in full sentences. 16 * * * 17 COORDINATION/GAIT: Able to do the heel/to walk

(PC) Williams v. Thompson

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 9, 2020

Three Prior Strikes 14 Inspection of other cases filed by plaintiff in this Court has led to the identification of at 15 least three cases brought by plaintiff that qualify … In order to establish a claim for the use of excessive force in violation of 8 the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must establish that prison officials applied force maliciously and 9 sadistically to cause harm, rather

Gutierrez v. Amazon.com Services, LLC

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 6, 2025

Any Documents, Testimony or Information to be designated as “Confidential” must 5 be clearly so designated before the Document, Testimony or Information is Disclosed or produced. 6 The parties may agree that the case … The Designating Party shall have the 8 burden on any Designation Motion of establishing the applicability of its “Confidential” 9 designation.

(PC) Curry v. California Forensic Medical Group

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 5, 2020

17 establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. … (Id.) 21 Plaintiff claims that the Butte County medical records clearly show their indifference to 22 plaintiff’s serious medical needs by their responses and lack of responses to plaintiff’s continued 23 requests

Nash-Perry v. City of Bakersfield

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 3, 2023

It clearly was a waste of the Court’s limited time and 1 On May 16, 2022, Ms. Cohen emailed Plaintiffs’ counsel—including both Mr. … See WLD Investors, Inc., 35 Fed. 25 App’x at 612 (9th Cir. 2002) (the moving party’s “extreme lack of diligence” did not establish manifest injustice).

(PC) Webster v. Haskins

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

Plaintiff has not shown that he qualifies as an expert witness in 18 order to be able to opine on the accuracy of Dr. Mathis’ conclusions. See Fed. R. Evid. 702. … As 19 Plaintiff is a lay witness, the only admissible evidence he can provide on his own is limited to 20 opinions that are rationally based on his perception; that are helpful to clearly understanding his 21 testimony

(PC) Langley v. Garcia

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 24, 2022

The Court will grant a motion in limine, and 12 thereby bar use of the evidence in question, only if the moving party establishes that the evidence 13 clearly is not admissible for any valid purpose. Id. … Such objections shall clearly specify the requested 12 || modifications, corrections, additions, or deletions.

(PC) Patterson v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 7, 2022

s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous 1 or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 2 relief from a defendant who is immune … lite, ‘courts should be extremely cautious’ about 26 issuing a preliminary injunction and should not grant such relief unless the facts and law clearly

(HC) Hubbard v. People of the State of California

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 7, 2021

Id. 22 A state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if it applies a rule 23 contradicting a holding of the Supreme Court or reaches a result different … The claim was clearly exhausted.

(HC) Kuzmenko v. Phillips

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 10, 2025

To obtain a mandatory injunction, a plaintiff must show that “the law and 26 facts clearly favor her position, not simply that she is likely to succeed.” Id. (emphasis 27 in original). … Here, the Respondents’ harm is clearly minimal, as they 8 have no discretion to ignore the Congressional directive issued in section 9 3632(d)(4)(C).

White v. Capital One

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 18, 2025

CFRA retaliation claim a plaintiff must allege (1) the defendant 10 employer was covered by CFRA, (2) the plaintiff was eligible for CFRA protections, (3) the plaintiff 11 exercised her right to take CFRA leave for a qualifying … Mar. 30, 2022) (“When the language of an order clearly states that a plaintiff may only amend 9 to address certain deficiencies identified in the order, courts have held that a plaintiff is barred from 10 adding new claims

Vincent v. City of California City

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 5, 2019

He clearly stated at the beginning of the meeting that he 5 would not discuss or tell me why I was terminated, and he would never tell me why I was terminated. … The City argues Plaintiff cannot establish the required elements and thus 6 “cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination.” (Doc. 38-1 at 21-22) 7 a.

Biagro Western Sales, Inc. v. Helena Chemical Co.

160 F. Supp. 2d 1112 · District Court, E.D. California · May 7, 2001

In order to ascribe a special definition to a claim term, the definition must be clearly stated in the patent specification or the file history. Id. (citing Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chems. … Deference is due to a qualified government agency presumed to have properly done its job. See Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible Inc., 793 F.2d 1565 (Fed.Cir.1986); Brooktree Corp. v.

(SS) Adams v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 13, 2025

A claimant establishes a prima facie 11 case of qualifying disability once he has carried the burden of proof from step one through step 12 four. … Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153 (1999) (comparing the substantial-evidence 12 standard to the deferential clearly-erroneous standard). “[T]he threshold for such evidentiary 13 sufficiency is not high.”

(HC) Jarvis v. Pollard

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 29, 2020

Penal Code 186.22 (b)(1)(B)—5-year lesser gang 1 associated enhancement felony qualifying as a “serious” felony. … The entire 16 petition is clearly unexhausted and should be dismissed without prejudice. 17 However, the undersigned must consider whether a stay pursuant to Rhines v.

(PC) Harris v. Restivo

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

or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 20 legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 21 that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) 27 (“[T]here is a clearly established constitutional due process right not to be subjected to criminal 28 charges on the basis of false evidence that was deliberately

Ricafort

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 31, 2025

P. 26(b)(2)(C). 7 In a motion to compel discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a), “[t]he party 8 seeking to compel discovery has the burden of establishing that … On this point, plaintiff’s motion to compel is 10 granted. 11 Defendants’ proposed responses also do not suffice because of the qualifier that all 12

Jason A. Ritchie v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 13, 2026

Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 19 1038 (9th Cir. 2008). 20 To qualify for benefits under the Social Security Act, a plaintiff must establish that he or 21 she is unable to … ALJ cannot discourage that which the regulations 22 encourage. 23 Ritchie clearly

Wright v. USAA Savings Bank

District Court, E.D. California · May 22, 2020

Circuit “set aside the Commission’s 2 treatment” of what “functions a device must perform to qualify as 3 an autodialer,” ACA Int’l, 885 F.3d at 703, defendants’ 4 proposition that the ACA International … evidence to support a finding that 21 defendants received the letter. 22 Moreover, based upon the court’s colloquy with counsel 23 at oral argument, it clearly

(SS) Malta v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 30, 2019

Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1985). 2 DISABILITY BENEFITS 3 To qualify for benefits under the Social Security Act, Plaintiff must establish he is unable … The burden of proof is on a claimant to establish disability. Terry v. 12 Sullivan, 903 F.2d 1273, 1275 (9th Cir. 1990).