Case law

(PC) Bernal v. Beard

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 25, 2019

Regardless, the rosters produced clearly include the information 28 sought by both versions of Request 7. … interests if disclosure were 22 made.” 23 //// 24 4 “Federal common law recognizes a qualified

(PC) Camposeco v. Stamper

District Court, E.D. California · Jul 31, 2020

frivolous or 28 1 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 … Plaintiff fails to clearly state what the Defendant was 15 responsible for in violation of his constitutional rights and the factual basis for such

(SS) Flores v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

On April 29, 2015, following an evaluation of Plaintiff, family practice physician William 21 Cusick opined in a letter that Plaintiff “suffers significant disability from hearing loss and vertigo 22 that she should qualify … If a plaintiff does not clearly raise an assertion of error in her opening brief, it is waived. Farley v. Colvin, 231 F. Supp. 3d 335, 341 (N.D. Cal. 2017).

(PC) Antonio Gutierrez v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 29, 2024

Plaintiff argues that Defendant “clearly knew that facial numbness was 10 serious: she claims to have ruled out stroke.” (Id.). … Hamlin, then the correct action would have been for 23 her discuss this emergency with a qualified health care provider.

T.M.-J. v. Vallejo City Unified School District

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 30, 2024

In May 2014, VCUSD assessed Plaintiff and 11 found him eligible for special education services under the qualifying category of “other health 12 impairment.” (Id.) … As 3 stated previously, Plaintiff’s parents had many years of report cards, standardized test scores, and 4 IEP reports to clearly demonstrate that Plaintiff was not making progress and had demonstrated 5 difficulties

(PC) Howell v. Vera

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 26, 2024

The one significant qualifier is that “the remedies must indeed be ‘available’ to the 17 prisoner.” Id. at 639. … Plaintiff 4 clearly alleges that Defendants incited and encouraged another inmate to attack Plaintiff and 5 orchestrated the October 2, 2019 incident in which Inmate Scott assaulted Plaintiff.

Amaro v. Bee Sweet Citrus, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 30, 2022

of a complaint in a second lawsuit as multiplying the proceedings of the first suit because “the act 24 of filing a complaint is not sanctionable under that section”). 25 Even if filing the Amaro complaint qualified … The 1993 comments do not contain any such exception, and 18 clearly retains the requirements of both a separate motion and a 21-day Safe Harbor warning 19 notice.” (Id.)

(PC) Fernandez v. Gamboa

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

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. … preliminary injunction 7 that goes beyond maintaining the status quo pendente lite, ‘courts should be extremely cautious’ 8 about issuing a preliminary injunction and should not grant such relief unless the facts and law 9 clearly

(PC) Anderson v. County of Shasta

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 1, 2023

The Court must dismiss a 24 complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon 25 which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Nonetheless, while the court has clearly 8 stated that one of the “basic elements” of a First Amendment retaliation claim is that the adverse 9 action “chilled the inmates exercise of his First Amendment rights,” id.

Stahl v. Klotz

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 2, 2022

Plaintiffs must show, first, that they can no 5 longer pursue their chosen occupation and, second, that “this inability is due to actions that 6 substantively were ‘clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial … imposes 23 liability on any person who “subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States 24 or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or 25 immunities

United States v. State Water Resources Control Board

District Court, E.D. California · Dec 2, 2019

May 22, 2006) (CEQA claim qualified for Burford abstention because 8 “California has put into place a specialized procedure to quickly and consistently resolve issues 9 involving land use and the environment”); see … Challenges to Intergovernmental Immunity Claim 6 1.

(SS) Green v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

Sec’y of 9 Health and Human Servs., 812 F.2d 509, 510 (9th Cir. 1987). 10 REVIEW 11 In order to qualify for benefits, a claimant must establish … The 18 burden is on the claimant to establish disability. Terry v.

Gastelum v. Cotton On USA, Inc.

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

in question to establish standing, Thurston v. … Furthermore, there is no question that Plaintiff would qualify as a 12 “high frequency litigant” under the Unruh Act.

(PC) Howell v. Cruz

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

Cal. 2008) (holding that “a previous party having like 22 motive to develop the testimony about the same material facts” is sufficient to qualify … However, as stated above, the complaint clearly reflects that it was signed the following 4 day, May 23, 2019, and then filed on June 4, 2019. (Compl. at 22.)

(SS) King v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 25, 2024

A 18 claimant establishes a prima facie case of qualifying disability once she has carried the burden of 19 proof from step one through step four. 20 Before making the step four … Further, the ALJ noted mental status findings from these visits, but the records 20 clearly state “Patient is a no show. Please disregard rest of the note below.

Hayes v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 12, 2021

Such places of public accommodation must keep products, 14 services and areas accessible for the qualified persons protected by Title III definitions. 15 … establish what aspects of Title III Plaintiff believes 7 were violated.

(SS) Jennings v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

established by medical evidence.’” … established [Plaintiff’s] lack of” a medically severe mental impairment. 15 Webb, 433 F.3d at 688.

Iman Solanti BozchalooI, et al. v. United States Department of State, et al.

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 17, 2026

USCIS verifies that the petitioner 14 is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident and that a qualifying relationship exists 15 between the petitioner and the beneficiary. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.1(a)(1). … addition, many of the district court cases that have found 22 delays of less than four years reasonable involve visa petitions where plaintiffs were in 23 the United States and not facing family separation, which is clearly

Evans v. CA Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training

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

She was denied promotions for which 22 she was qualified. … Defendants have established that preclusion applies as to issues resolved in the 1 qui tam action because that case clearly resulted in a final judgment

(SS) Sutter v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

Chater 80 F.3d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to the test established in Cotton, 799 4 F.2d 1403). … Treatment relationship 24 The ALJ indicated “[t]he record does not clearly explain if [Dr.