Case law

(HC)Canderlario Vargas v. James Robertson

District Court, E.D. California · May 5, 2023

Respondent also moves to dismiss the petition because the 9 grounds raised in the petition do not raise a federal claim because the state courts determined that 10 Petitioner did not qualify for resentencing and a federal … Additionally, “[f]ederal due process challenges to state adjudications of state 20 substantive rights are generally cognizable . . . particularly . . . where, as here, a pro se petitioner 21 raises a question not yet clearly

Marshall v. Ameriprise Financial Services

District Court, E.D. California · May 31, 2024

In Brown, the sixth-month relationship between the Plaintiffs and the financial adviser was sufficient to establish a fiduciary duty. Brown, 168 Cal. … "To be mandatory, a clause must contain language that clearly designates a 21 forum as the exclusive one." Id.

(SS) Wojtowicz v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 19, 2021

(Id. at 36) He said that he “was born with RA, degenerative bone disease, and 8 immune deficiency.” … Chater 80 F.3d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to the test established in Cotton, 799 11 F.2d 1403).

(PC) Venegas v. Mendoza

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

was not denied the right to call witnesses at a disciplinary hearing 22 by Defendant Bracken; (6) Defendant Munoz did not violate the Eighth Amendment; and (7) Defendants Bracken and Munoz are entitled to qualified … 23 immunity.

(PC) Barrett v. Ciolli

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 13, 2021

complaint or portion thereof if the inmate has raised claims that are legally 5 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … The basis 24 of a Bivens action is some illegal or inappropriate conduct on the part of a federal official or agent 25 that violates a clearly established constitutional right. Baiser v.

Santoro

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 27, 2026

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 … Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to 7 serious medical needs. See Wood v.

Turner v. Wong

641 F. Supp. 2d 1010 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 4, 2009

Lykissa directed qualified technician Tim McClain to confirm Mr. Glosier’s results using a gaschromatograph mass spectrometric analysis. … Turner’s decision not to estrange his father as an adult does not demonstrate immunity to the damage caused when he was a child.

Andrews

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 14, 2025

Those aliens “shall be detained for a [removal] proceeding” if an immigration officer “determines that [they are] 27 not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted” into the country … In Rodriguez Diaz, the Ninth Circuit “assume[d]” that fourteen months of 7 detention without a bond hearing “qualifies as ‘prolonged’ in a general sense.” 53 F.4th at 1207. 8 “In general, ‘[a]s detention continues past

Nash-Perry v. City of Bakersfield

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 10, 2024

The Court will bar 22 use of the evidence in question only if the moving party establishes that the evidence clearly is not 23 admissible for any valid purpose. … Evid. 803(1). 1 To qualify for this exception, “the declarant must… have personal knowledge of what she describes.” 2 Bemis v. Edwards, 45 F.3d 1369, 1372 (9th Cir. 1995). Mr.

(SS) Selzer v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 11, 2025

A 13 claimant establishes a prima facie case of qualifying disability once she has carried the burden of 14 proof from step one through step four. 15 Before making the step four … As previously discussed, that is clearly a 4 misinterpreatation of the situation.

(PC) Tran v. Smith

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 14, 2023

, must be supported by (1) citing to 17 particular parts of materials in the record, including but not limited to depositions, documents, 18 declarations, or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials cited do not establish … In the alternative, Defendants argue they are entitled to 12 qualified immunity. 13 In opposition, Plaintiff argues Defendants Jericoff and Munsel acted with deliberate

Marcello Lopez Jaramillo v. Warden of the Mesa Verde Detention Facility, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 15, 2026

subject to statutory 13 exceptions, “in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking 14 admission is not clearly … Thus, 4 Petitioner’s convictions under these California Penal Codes qualify as offenses covered by § 5 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) such that he is subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c).

(PC) Bennett v. Monroe Detention Center

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 10, 2024

[t]o redress 26 the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of 27 any right, privilege or immunity … The Ninth 23 Circuit has not clearly stated what constitutes “substantial evidence” of incompetence warranting 24 such a hearing. See Hoang Minh Tran v.

Martinez v. Vision Precision Holdings, LLC

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

Indeed, the practice of asking a new employee to 6 review a packet of new hire paperwork is essentially an everyday occurrence, and there is nothing 7 about plaintiff’s experience, as she describes it, that would qualify … That justification must be explained in 2 the contract or established factually. Fitz v. NCR Corp., 118 Cal. App. 4th 702, 723 (2004) 3 (citing Armendariz, 24 Cal. 4th at 117).

(PC) O'Brien v. Said

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 26, 2021

, must be supported by (1) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including 11 but not limited to depositions, documents, declarations, or discovery; or (2) showing that the materials 12 cited do not establish … In the alternative, Defendant argues he is entitled to qualified 12 immunity.9 13 While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff

(SS) Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2020

. §§ 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 … See id. 21 Under the regulations, only “licensed physicians and certain qualified specialists” 22 are considered acceptable medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a); see

(PC) Ellis v. County of Kern

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 24, 2023

complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous 13 or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 14 relief from a defendant who is immune … Further, enforcement of consent decrees is governed by the 23 established contract principle that non-parties, as intended third party beneficiaries, may enforce 24 an agreement. Id.

Apple Hill Growers v. El Dorado Orchards, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 19, 2022

A Rule 30(b)(6) deponent necessarily qualifies as a 22 party witness, whose deposition can be noticed without a subpoena. … West because she believed him 2 presumptively immune from deposition by an adversary unless defendants could show “(1) no 3 other means exist to obtain the information than to depose opposing counsel [citation omitted

(HC)Ahmadi

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 5, 2026

Petitioner asserts that he is likely to succeed on the 19 merits of his claims because under the three-part procedural due process test established in Mathews 20 v. … Respondents assert that because 5 Petitioner is an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), 6 he is unlikely to succeed on the merits and therefore does not qualify for a TRO.

(SS) Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 7, 2024

A 15 claimant establishes a prima facie case of qualifying disability once he has carried the burden of 16 proof from step one through step four. 17 Before making the step four determination … Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153 (1999) (comparing the substantial-evidence standard to the deferential 24 clearly erroneous standard). “[T]he threshold for such evidentiary sufficiency is not high.” Biestek, 25 139 S.