Case law

Havea

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 18, 2026

that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or that the action (1) is frivolous or 23 malicious, (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 24 against a defendant who is immune … The complaint, therefore, must allege facts that plausibly establish the 4 defendant’s liability. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007).

Fratus v. Vaca

District Court, N.D. California · Jun 3, 2025

Plaintiff was already advised that the allegations were insufficient to 26 establish any claim against “John Doe #1, 2, and 3” because the complaint does not describe 27 the specific actions of each John Doe defendant … Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor 15 qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute.

Carpenter v. Internal Revenue Service

District Court, N.D. California · Feb 7, 2023

review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 20 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief 21 may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Id., Ex. 4. 13 Question 15 asked “Does someone who is incarcerated qualify for the Payment [i.e., an EIP]?”

United States v. Hardeman

598 F. Supp. 2d 1040 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 23, 2009

Congress in this chapter establishes a comprehensive national system for the registration of those offenders.” 42 U.S.C. 16901. … Defendant contends that, because those offenses were dismissed, they do not qualify him as a “sex offender” under SORNA, and an interpretation of SORNA under which they did qualify him as a sex offender would violate Apprendi

Luttrell v. Hart

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 22, 2020

This specific intent 22 inquiry centers on two questions: “First, ‘is the right at issue clearly delineated and plainly 23 applicable under the circumstances of the case,’ and second, ‘did the defendant commit the act … However, Section 845 provides immunity “for failure to establish 18 a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection 19 service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient

Calloway v. White

649 F. Supp. 2d 1048 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 20, 2009

establishing such a rule. … In other words, the making of such a determination does not represent an action contrary to clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See Kessee v.

M.

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 20, 2026

The Court cannot say that Dooley’s response was not clearly 4 unreasonable as a matter of law. … Eleventh Amendment Immunity 8 Defendants argue that Dooley is not a proper defendant because he “is immune from 9 liability under the Eleventh Amendment.” Mot. at 14:11–16:15.

Clutchette v. Procunier

328 F. Supp. 767 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 21, 1971

There are no regulations establishing any appeal process. B. … Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 263, 267 , 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1018, 1020 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1969). 11 *782 With this introduction, the Supreme Court proceeded to clearly establish what is demanded by rudimentary due process. A.

Lowell v. SECRETARY OF DEPT. OF HOUSING, ETC.

446 F. Supp. 859 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 16, 1977

The 1970 HUD regulations make it plain that the Lowells do not qualify for relocation assistance. … Since section 213 of the Uniform Relocation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4633 , mandating regulations which are “fair and reasonable, and as uniform as practicable,” and section 201, id. § 4621, declaring the Act’s purpose to be “to establish

Smith v. Alameda County Sheriff Dept

District Court, N.D. California · Nov 17, 2023

review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 7 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 8 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Id. 15 Furthermore, supervisor defendants are entitled to qualified immunity where the allegations 16 against them are “bald” or “conclusory” because such allegations do not “plausibly” establish the 17 supervisors

Zhang v. Twitter Inc.

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 23, 2023

Under California law, a plaintiff 27 bringing a defamation claim must establish: “(a) a publication that is (b) false, (c) defamatory, and 1 v. … enforce the 11 UCL’s provisions, a plaintiff must “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property 12 sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and (2) show that that economic injury

Espinal v. Eldridge

District Court, N.D. California · Jul 12, 2021

None of his claims is based on clearly established 16 law. For that reason among others, each claim fails. … (Id.) 15 Habeas relief is not warranted because there is no clearly established right to the 16 disclosure of juror contact information. Pha v. Swarthout, 658 F.

Everett v. Director of I.R.S.

District Court, N.D. California · Aug 15, 2023

review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 20 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief 21 may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … Id., Ex. 4. 13 Question 15 asked “Does someone who is incarcerated qualify for the Payment [i.e., an EIP]?”

Smith v. County of Santa Cruz

District Court, N.D. California · Oct 28, 2020

The Court found that facts 17 alleging that the officer was not qualified to serve in that role were related to his role as a hearing 18 officer and likewise barred by absolute immunity. Id. … Smith’s substantive due process claims, “[t]o establish a violation of 18 substantive due process, a plaintiff is ordinarily required to prove that a challenged government 19 action was clearly arbitrary and unreasonable

Buttino v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

801 F. Supp. 298 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 31, 1992

Buttino’s tenure at the FBI) the FBI would clearly have purged any employee for being candid about one’s homosexuality. … Clearly, defendants are attempting to treat the security-clearance revocation decision as necessarily separate from the FBI’s employment practices toward gays.

Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson

946 F. Supp. 1480 · District Court, N.D. California · Dec 23, 1996

As the Supreme Court aptly noted in another socially-charged case: Nor does the implementation of ... change through popular referendum immunize it [from constitutional scrutiny]. … Once the initiative has qualified, it must gain majority approval by the voters.

Gallardo v. Westfal-Larsen & Co. A/S

435 F. Supp. 484 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 3, 1977

Yet, the authors of the Restatement clearly indicate that the contributory negligence of the plaintiff and assumption of risk have a direct bearing upon liability under Sections 343 and 343A. … The inspection sheet would then contain a comment regarding the need for sawdust or sand, but the sheet for October 25, 1974, contained no qualifying remarks whatsoever. 7 .

Dudgeon v. Sonoma

District Court, N.D. California · Dec 23, 2021

The primary 26 reason the Court finds that an award of costs should be excused is that the evidence supplied by 27 Plaintiff is sufficient to establish that Plaintiff will be rendered indigent if costs are awarded … In reaching this 16 conclusion, the Court finds it significant that while Defendants prevailed in the case based on 17 qualified immunity, Plaintiff offered evidence sufficient to establish a material dispute of fact

National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp.

452 F. Supp. 2d 946 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 6, 2006

be a business establishment is unavailing. … The Ninth Circuit has clearly stated that such requests for mandatory relief are disfavored and should be denied absent a showing that the relevant law and facts are clearly in favor of the moving party.

County of Santa Clara v. Trump

275 F. Supp. 3d 1196 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 20, 2017

Szalczyk, 745 F.3d 634, 643 (3d Cir. 2014) (“[Settled constitutional law clearly establishes that [immigration detainers] must be deemed requests” because any other interpretation would render them unconstitutional under … as funding related to Medicare, Medicaid, transportation, child welfare services, immunization and vaccination programs, and emergency preparedness.