Case law

Dones v. Allison

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 28, 2022

“To qualify as an ‘adequate’ procedural ground, a state rule must be ‘firmly established 15 and regularly followed.’” Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307, 316 (2011) (quoting Beard v. … Relief can only be granted under the 19 “unreasonable application of clearly established federal law” prong of 2254(d)(2). Prescott, -- 20 53 F.4th 470 at 479.

Zamora v. Bridgecrest Credit Company, LLC

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 5, 2024

City of N.Y., 458 F.3d 150, 156–57 (2d Cir. 21 2006); In re Immune Response Sec. Litig., 375 F. Supp. 2d 983, 995–96 (S.D. … A defendant must “attempt to collect debts owed another before [the 20 defendant] can ever qualify as a debt collector” under the FDCPA. Henson v.

Snyder v. Allison

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 3, 2020

dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the 18 complaint,” if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may 19 be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … and that Defendant 25 Allison “encourages compliance at all CDCR prisons with customized policies designed to 26 make successful litigation against CDCR employees impossible,” id. at 5, Defendant 27 Mondet “is not qualified

Sanchez v. Loews Hotels Holding Corporation

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 8, 2021

Id. at 823. 8 All three elements are established in this case. … A plaintiff is a qualified individual if they establish that 14 they can perform the essential functions of the position sought, rather than the essential 15 functions of the existing position. Id.

Solex Laboratories, Inc. v. Graham

165 F. Supp. 428 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 6, 1958

But, unlike most of the specific powers which Congress is given, that grant is qualified. The Congress does not have free rein, for example, to decide that patents should be easily or freely given. … Clearly, the corneal type contact lens is not a mere gadget. The Progress of Science and useful Arts was served by its invention.

Wainscott v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 3, 2021

Court “shall” dismiss a motion to proceed IFP if 15 the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be 16 granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … She states that she did not hire any of them because they 26 were “not qualified” to handle her case and she “couldn’t afford” their services. Id.

Estate of Gustavo Silva, Jr., by and through successors in interest, Maria Lucila, Gustavo Silva Sr., Yesika Silva, and Gustavo Silva Jr.; Maria Lucila, individually; Gustavo Silva, Sr., individually; Yesika Silva, individually; Gustavo Silva, Jr., individually v. United States

District Court, S.D. California · May 27, 2026

established and well-settled 24 constitutional rights.”); ECF No. 24 at 13 (arguing that if proper policies were in place, 25 “Mr. … “In order to establish negligence under California law, a plaintiff must 10 establish four required elements: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages.” 11 Ileto v.

Scott v. Hill

District Court, S.D. California · May 27, 2025

(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), the Court must screen a 4 prisoner’s IFP complaint and sua sponte dismiss it to the extent that it is frivolous, 5 malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune … All payments must clearly identify the name and case number 27 assigned to this action. 28 3.

Gonzales v. Rohrer

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 28, 2022

The Motion does 10 not appear to argue that the Court clearly erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s case for lack of 11 subject-matter jurisdiction or that an intervening change in controlling law necessitates the 12 relief … the August 24, 2020 incident, see id. at 22—23. 3 Given that these documents predate the Court’s dismissal of this action and were 4 within Plaintiff's personal knowledge and possession, they do not qualify

Dragasits v. Archuleta

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 29, 2025

Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005) (“[T]hose who seek to invoke 8 [the Fourteenth Amendment’s] procedural protection must establish that one of these 9 interests is at stake.”). … Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). 13 But none of the liberty interests Dragasits identifies qualify.

Cruz-McCoy v. Rady Children's Hospital

District Court, S.D. California · Apr 27, 2023

3 proceeding IFP pursuant to § 1915(a), and courts should dismiss claims that are 4 “frivolous or malicious; fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seek[] 5 monetary relief against a defendant immune … The complaint does not clearly articulate the 23 facts to support each cause of action but instead consists of seven pages of single lined description of Plaintiff’s experience with Rady Children’s Hospital and its

Luckett v. Sudbury

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 5, 2020

“‘A complaint 22 cannot be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of 23 facts that would establish the timeliness of the claim.’” Id. (quoting Supermail Cargo, 24 Inc. v. … ALL PAYMENTS 5 || SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED 6 THIS ACTION; 7 3.

Marin v. Bahr

District Court, S.D. California · Apr 10, 2025

It immunizes defendants 16 from virtually any tort liability (including claims for fraud), with the sole exception of 17 causes of action for malicious prosecution.” Olsen v. Harbison, 191 Cal. … Finally, Plaintiff also cannot establish that he justifiably relied 11 upon any misrepresentation.

Desert Protective Council v. United States Department of the Interior

927 F. Supp. 2d 949 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 27, 2013

The Court concludes that John Norton has established standing but Hector Casillas has not established standing. B. … The ROD established mitigation measures to limit the impact of the project.

(HC) Covarrubias v. Becerra

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 9, 2019

established federal law.”); Mackey v. … Absent such ‘clearly established Federal 1 law,’ we cannot conclude that the state court’s ruling was an ‘unreasonable application.’” 2 Id.; see also Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70, 76-77 (2006), Greel v.

Dones v. Allison

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 20, 2023

Judge Major concluded that “Petitioner has not shown that the state court 18 decision rejecting his claim of actual innocence was contrary to or an unreasonable 19 application of clearly established federal law.” … In the R&R, Judge Major 26 concluded “the state court’s analysis and decision denying Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was ‘contrary to’ nor an ‘unreasonable application of’ clearly established federal

Huerta v. Nielsen

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 17, 2020

The parties do not appear to dispute that Plaintiff belongs 18 to a protected class and was qualified for his job. … The record clearly 20 reflects that Gutierrez received different treatment – he was permitted to continue with 21 his normal assignment during the course of the ensuing investigation – however, the 22 government contends

Loc. Joint Exec. Bd., AFL-CIO v. Hotel Circle, Inc.

419 F. Supp. 778 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 11, 1976

This rationale is even more persuasive if the assumption of an executory contract will bind the estate in the future rather than merely establish a priority as an administrative expense. … This court will not disturb this finding unless it can be determined that the finding is clearly erroneous. Rule 810 Bankruptcy Rules of Procedure.

Hernandez v. Williams

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 17, 2023

No. 61 at 19-22. 5 Alternatively, Defendants assert that even if Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claims are 6 proven, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Id. at 22-23. 7 1. … Because the Court finds Defendants are entitled to summary 20 judgment on Defendants’ Eighth Amendment claims, it declines to reach the issue of 21 qualified immunity.

Thomas

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 5, 2026

6 review, and mandatory dismissal, if the action or appeal “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) 7 fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against 8 a defendant who is immune … Greene, 527 U.S. 9 263, 281-82 (1999). 10 Here, Plaintiff alleges that “prosecutors possessed surveillance evidence that clearly 11 established [his] innocence