Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
6,306 results
1.59s
278 F. Supp. 2d 1151 · District Court, E.D. California · Jul 29, 2003
established law. … However, it clearly means much more. Identifying means identifying.
Cited 7 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 29, 2023
Additionally, defendant argues that he is entitled to 14 qualified immunity because plaintiff has not established that the law was clear at the time that 15 prescribing acetaminophen under the circumstances violated the … violate clearly established statutory or 20 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Mar 11, 2026
Qualified Immunity 20 In the alternative, Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity in this 21 case because no official in their position would believe … The plaintiff bears the burden 11 of establishing that the right alleged was clearly established. Moran v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Apr 7, 2023
qualified immunity. … That 12 one instance is not enough to establish Monell liability.
Cited 0 timesUnknownNorton by & Through Norton v. United States
616 F. Supp. 484 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 15, 1985
The Ninth Circuit has adopted the ultra-hazardous activity exception to the general rule immunizing the hirer of a general contractor enunciated by the Supreme Court in Van Arsdale v. … Clearly, then, the holding in United States v.
Cited 0 timesPublished290 F.R.D. 494 · District Court, E.D. California · Mar 25, 2013
County of Orange which, when read in context, was clearly not meant to part with this consensus among courts who have considered the issue. … Plaintiffs urge the Court to use representative testimony to establish either a reasonable frequency or a reasonable duration of cleaning.
Abrogated on other grounds by Daniel Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 903 F.3d 1090 (2018)Cited 3 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Aug 21, 2020
Qualified Immunity 8 Legal Standard 9 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability … clearly 15 established at the time of the officer's alleged misconduct.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jun 23, 2025
However, for other tasks, social workers 24 have only qualified immunity. See Miller v. … Plaintiff should 5 || clearly identify what claims/causes of action she seeks to bring and set forth the facts supporting 6 || each claim.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Feb 13, 2023
(Id. at 7.) 11 Next, Defendants contend Plaintiff cannot establish that the deprivation of two dinnertime 12 meals violated clearly established law and that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified Immunity 11 Defendants alternatively argue they are entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknown914 F. Supp. 2d 1079 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 26, 2012
These cases clearly establish that state actors may be held liable “where they affirmatively place an individual in danger,” Munger, 227 F.3d at 1086, by acting with “deliberate indifference to [a] known or obvious danger … and benefits among *1110 otherwise qualified bona fide residents.
Cited 57 timesPublished(PC) Huckabee v. Medical Staff at CSATF
District Court, E.D. California · Feb 5, 2020
The defense of qualified immunity protects “government officials...from 22 liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 23 constitutional rights of which a reasonable … A court considering a claim of qualified immunity must determine whether 25 the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right and whether the right was 26 clearly established, such that it would
Cited 0 timesUnknownErnest Godfrey Logan, Jr. v. Chevron Fuel Station, et al.
District Court, E.D. California · Jun 2, 2026
To qualify to proceed in forma pauperis, the 2 litigant must submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets they possess. 3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). … In 15 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 16 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 17 construes those allegations in the
Cited 0 timesUnknownMarquez Rivas v. Kern County Hospital Authority
District Court, E.D. California · Apr 22, 2025
Supp. 2d at 22 1269 (holding that a physician is a contractor under § 233(g)(1)(A) “only if he or she has entered into 23 a contract with a qualified entity”); Perez-Rodriguez v. … Therefore, the Court finds it unnecessary to apply 15 the “control” test established in Logue and Orleans.
Cited 0 timesUnknown(PS) Warfield v. Attorney General State of California
District Court, E.D. California · Feb 11, 2021
The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as 7 frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual 8 contentions are clearly baseless. … Plaintiff has only stated that he is attempting to bring a breach of contract claim, 26 which is a state law claim and therefore does not qualify for Section 1331 jurisdiction.
Cited 0 timesUnknownCompu-Link Corp. v. PHH Mortgage Corp.
District Court, E.D. California · Feb 3, 2023
If only a portion or portions of the material 13 on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected 14 portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins). … If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for 24 protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making 25 appropriate markings in the margins).
Cited 0 timesUnknown327 F. Supp. 3d 1218 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 27, 2018
Section 104.33 of title 34, Code of Federal Regulations, requires recipients of federal funds to "provide a [FAPE] to each qualified handicapped person." 34 C.F.R. § 104.33 (a). … Because the claims against Governor Brown are dismissed for lack of Article III standing and Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Court does not reach State Defendants' arguments regarding Defendant Brown's legislative immunity
Cited 30 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 16, 2025
(FAC ¶ 16.) 10 Plaintiff was, and remains, a qualified and recognized individual with an ADA disability. 11 Plaintiff’s designation is contained and reflected in his inmate file. … 22 In relevant part, section 835 of the California Government Code states: 23 [A] public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes
Cited 0 timesUnknownRocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Goldstene
843 F. Supp. 2d 1042 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 29, 2011
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaints arguing, inter alia, that Section 211(c)(4)(B) immunizes them from (1) scrutiny under the Commerce Clause and (2) preemption by Section 211(o). … In their complaints, plaintiffs clearly allege that California’s LCFS conflicts with Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act.
Cited 5 timesPublishedKimberly Y. Mims, et al. v. California Legislative Black Caucus, et al.
District Court, E.D. California · Dec 9, 2025
In 2 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 3 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 4 construes those allegations in the … Moreover, the Complaint also fails to establish diversity jurisdiction. Although 6 Plaintiffs meet the amount in controversy, Plaintiffs do not establish complete diversity of 7 citizenship.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. California · Jan 5, 2022
Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil 25 damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of 26 which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … established, Defendants Moya, Lavid, and Hilziger are entitled to qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna