Case law

Noem

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

Nor do Respondents argue that Petitioner 2 properly is subject to mandatory detention under some other qualifying detention provision. 3 Additionally, Respondents’ contention that the facts of this action … Zadvydas, 533 20 U.S. at 693 (citations omitted); see Hernandez, 872 F.3d at 990 (“[I]t is well-established that the 21 Due Process Clause stands as a significant constraint on the manner in which the political branches

(PC) Rojas v. CDCR

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 4, 2025

If no 25 responsive records exist, defendants must clearly and unambiguously 26 27 3 SOMS, the Strategic Offender Management System, … Both 20 this citation and the generalized reference to the safety and security of staff and third parties 21 might under some circumstances provide a basis for a qualified privilege, see generally Sanchez 22 v.

(PC) Bush v. Santoro

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

The 17 Court will bar use of the evidence in question only if the moving party establishes that the 18 evidence clearly is not admissible for any valid purpose. Jonasson, 115 F. 3d at 440. … Discussion among counsel clearly may not be 21 read. Second, parties are not obligated to make all possible objections at a deposition (Fed. R. 22 Civ.

(SS) Olea v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 2, 2023

A 21 claimant establishes a prima facie case of qualifying disability once she has carried the burden of 22 proof from step one through step four. 23 Before making the step four determination … Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 667 (9th Cir. 15 2017) (“doubting” that epidural steroid shots qualified as “conservative” medical treatment for 16 fibromyalgia).

(SS) Curlee v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California · Apr 1, 2022

More recently, however, the Supreme Court has held that, where the Appeals Council has 20 dismissed a request for review as untimely after a claimant has obtained a hearing from an ALJ 21 on the merits, that dismissal qualifies … Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153 (1999) (comparing the 10 substantial-evidence standard to the deferential clearly-erroneous standard). “[T]he threshold for 11 such evidentiary sufficiency is not high.” Biestek v.

(PC)Gelazela v. United States of America

District Court, E.D. California · May 18, 2023

The basis of a Bivens action is some illegal or inappropriate conduct on the part of a 11 federal official or agent that violates a clearly established constitutional right. … However, it is not the case that constitutional claims are 22 also tort claims, and he does not set forth facts establishing as such.

Misti Gill v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 12, 2026

Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 18 1038 (9th Cir. 2008). 19 To qualify for benefits under the Social Security Act, a plaintiff must establish that he or 20 she is unable to … moderate limitation in attention and concentration for extended periods, the ALJ’s 18 residual functional capacity assessment clearly

O'Neel v. City of Folsom

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

Moreover, the right to familial association guaranteed under the 15 Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was so clearly 16 established that any reasonable law enforcement agent, including Defendants … Likewise, the children’s rights to be free from unreasonable seizure was 21 clearly established pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the United States 22 Constitution, and their rights were violated by their seizure

Susan Piela v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 25, 2026

Evaluating a Claimant’s Alleged Disability 21 To qualify for benefits under the Social Security Act, a plaintiff must establish … The 15 record clearly and explicitly contradicts the ALJ’s misrepresentations.

(DP)(HC) Horning v. Broomfield

District Court, E.D. California · Nov 23, 2022

The testimony of the above 18 witnesses as set forth in detail supra, will clearly be relevant to support Petitioner’s claims. See, e.g. Fed. R. Civ. … Bull is uniquely qualified to testify to his discussions 2 with McCullough regarding the ownership and distribution

United States v. State of California

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 12, 2020

In December 2011, Quebec 2 established its cap-and-trade program. (Iacangelo Decl. ¶ 25, 3 Ex. 23.) … As the court’s foregoing 13 analysis has demonstrated, the Agreement and California law as 14 applied does not qualify.

West Pacific Electric Company Corporation v. Dragados/Flatiron

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

who is qualified 23 for the same license classification as the classification being applied for.” … An evidentiary ruling in a different case 17 on a different record is clearly not pertinent to this case.

(SS)Sweeley

District Court, E.D. California · Feb 23, 2026

But, having clearly stated that he was according Dr. 6 Stafford’s opinion great weight, the ALJ was under an obligation to account for the moderate limitations Dr. … Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1021–1022 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[O]ur precedent and the objectives of the 18 credit-as-true rule foreclose the argument that a remand for the purpose of allowing the ALJ to 19 have a mulligan qualifies

(SS) Roberts v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California · Aug 14, 2019

Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1985). 20 DISABILITY BENEFITS 21 To qualify for benefits under the Social Security Act, Plaintiff must establish she is unable … The burden of proof is on a claimant to establish disability. Terry v. 2 Sullivan, 903 F.2d 1273, 1275 (9th Cir. 1990).

Troy Palmer v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

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

A claimant establishes a prima facie 12 case of qualifying disability once he has carried the burden of proof from step one through step 13 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.”

(SS) Valero v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008). 20 To qualify for benefits under the Social Security Act, a plaintiff must establish that 21 … reviewing an ALJ’s findings at step two the Court “must determine whether the ALJ 26 had substantial evidence to find that the medical evidence clearly

Full Spectrum IH, LLC v. DCM Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Sep 8, 2020

(See Doc. 16-3 at 4, ¶ 13) 15 The parties clearly disagree whether service was properly affected, and Defendants have 16 indicated an intent “to move to dismiss for failure to effect service…” (See Doc. 17 at 17) … Importantly, the Ninth Circuit indicated lack of personal jurisdiction 10 qualifies as a meritorious defense. See Thomas P. Gonzalez Corp. v.

Manzo v. McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California · Jan 20, 2022

As the Court will determine the specific amount to be 23 awarded at final approval, the excessive service award request, in itself, does not establish 24 preferential treatment that would prevent preliminary approval. … In terms of content, “[t]he notice must clearly and 1 concisely state” the following “in plain, easily understood language”: (1) “the nature of the 2 action;” (2) “the definition of the class certified;” (3) “the class

(SS) Hladek, Sr. v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

The party appealing the ALJ’s 28 decision generally bears the burden of establishing that it was harmed. Shinseki v. … “Then, in his decision, the ALJ gave ‘much weight’ to Dr. 8 Lorber’s opinion for light work with additional postural and environmental limitations, without 9 acknowledging his later testimony qualifying the accuracy of

(PC) Garraway v. Ciufo

District Court, E.D. California · Mar 16, 2020

a violation of this duty, the prisoner must establish that prison officials were 2 “deliberately indifferent to a serious threat to the inmate’s safety.” … “Federal common law recognizes a 2 qualified privilege for official information. Government personnel files are considered official 3 information.