Case law

Powell v. Basto

District Court, S.D. California · May 4, 2020

(1998), “[t]o state a claim of disability discrimination under Title II of the ADA, the plaintiff must allege four elements: (1) the plaintiff is an individual with a disability, (2) the plaintiff 23 is otherwise qualified … As pleaded, his conclusory allegations are clearly 13 insufficient as a matter of law. See, e.g., George v. Uribe, No. 11-CV-70 JLS (RBB), 2012 14 WL 993243, at *6 (S.D. Cal.

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

Lewis v. Khan

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 20, 2019

“A complaint cannot be dismissed unless it appears 5 beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would establish the timeliness 6 of the claim.” Id. (quoting Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. … ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE CLEARLY 24 IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION. 25 3.

Keith v. The City of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Sep 12, 2022

Even in light of the 19 legal standard, both with respect to Plaintiff’s pro se status and the Court’s acceptance of 20 Plaintiff’s pleadings as fact for purposes of the motion, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to clearly … “Title II of the ADA prohibits a public entity from discriminating against a 10 qualified individual with a disability on the basis of disability.” Thompson v.

Davydov v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 15, 2025

Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has established 6 he is unable to pay the fees or post the securities required to maintain a civil action and 7 therefore GRANTS the IFP motion. See S.D. Cal. Civ. … For example, while he lists 6 numerous federal statutes as bases for his suit (ECF No. 1 at 3), he fails to describe or 7 explain clearly how any individual statute applies to him or how they were violated.

Rasuwl v. Hays

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 29, 2019

Under these statutes, the Court 1 must sua sponte dismiss complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, 2 malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek damages from defendants who are immune. 3 See Lopez … ALL 16 PAYMENTS MUST BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER 17 ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION. 18 3.

Nguyen v. Williams

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

was denied a reasonable accommodation for 24 his hearing impairment, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requires Plaintiff to allege (1) he ‘is an individual with a disability’; (2) he ‘is otherwise qualified … must 13 screen a prisoner’s IFP complaint and sua sponte dismiss it to the extent it is frivolous, 14 malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks damages from 15 defendants who are immune

Teryaeva-Reed

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 13, 2025

Teryaeva-Reed must 28 1 clearly demonstrate that: (1) she “is likely to succeed on the merits”; (2) she “is likely to 2 suffer irreparable harm … But the facts, as they currently stand, establish a significant 24 likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. See Kazakov v.

Arellano v. Lamborn

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 23, 2020

“To establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must show both (1) deprivation of a right 5 secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was 6 committed by a person acting under … ALL 18 PAYMENTS SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER 19 ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION. 20 3.

Abikar v. Bristol Bay Native Corp.

300 F. Supp. 3d 1092 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 9, 2018

Because the FAC clearly and exclusively invokes Title VII as the source of law under which Plaintiffs sue for Counts One, Two, Three, Five, and Six, those claims must be dismissed. C. … A plaintiff therefore can state a claim under § 1981 by alleging "facts demonstrating that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position he sought or held; (3) he was subject to an adverse

Strunk v. Gastelo

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 1, 2019

The state court’s denial of this claim was neither 12 contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established law. … “To qualify as an ‘adequate’ 14 procedural ground, a state rule must be ‘firmly established and regularly followed.’” 15 Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307, 316 (2011) (quoting Beard v.

Pioneers Memorial Healthcare District v. Imperial Valley Healthcare District

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 19, 2024

a qualifying injury because 2 PMHD has “no constitutional rights as against the State.” … Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, where the Supreme Court 23 explained that “[a] municipal corporation . . . has no privileges or immunities under the 24 Federal Constitution which it may invoke in opposition

Penny v. Bastuba

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 26, 2021

Under these statutes, the Court 12 must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, 13 malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. … Supplemental State Law Claim 21 Plaintiff claims in Count One that “Defendant [Bastuba] clearly committed assault 22 and battery upon Plaintiff as defined by Ca.

Picart v. Pollard

District Court, S.D. California · Feb 9, 2022

List, 880 14 F.2d at 1045 (finding dismissal of civil rights action “as to the Department of Prisons was 15 proper” because “[t]he Nevada Department of Prisons, as a state agency, clearly was 16 immune from suit under … ALL 11 PAYMENTS SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER 12 ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION; 13 3.

Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.

509 F. Supp. 2d 912 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 6, 2007

An award of damages by the jury “must be upheld unless the amount is grossly excessive or monstrous, clearly not supported by the evidence, or based only on speculation or guesswork.” Monsanto Co. v. … In AT & T, the Supreme Court held that “a copy of Windows, not Windows in the abstract, qualifies as a ‘component’ under § 271(f).” Id. at 1756.

McCoy v. Le

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 25, 2022

(citation omitted). 3 Defendants’ conduct, here, could qualify as state action. … ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE 10 CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS 11 ACTION. 12 3.

Kakowski v. Allison

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 21, 2021

Under these statutes, 20 the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which 21 is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are 22 immune … All 23 payments should be clearly identified by the name and number assigned to this action. 24 3.

Mills v. Patricio; Valencia; California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 26, 2026

“To establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must show both (1) deprivation of a right 1 secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was 2 committed by a person acting under … “The State of California has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity 18 with respect to claims brought under § 1983 in federal court.” Dittman, 191 F.3d at 1025– 19 26; see Alabama v.

Kailikole v. Palomar Community College District

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 22, 2019

App. 4th at 354. 15 Defendant argues a finding that public entity decisions are protected activity will not 16 immunize public entities from judicial scrutiny. (Doc. No. 14-1 at 20.) … free 18 speech, weather reporting was a matter of public interest, defendant’s selection of weather 19 anchors to report the news “helped advance or assist” First Amendment expression, and 20 therefore, the selection qualified

Dalrada Financial Corporation v. Bonar

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

To satisfy the “likelihood of irreparable harm” requirement, the 23 moving party must establish (1) that it is likely to suffer a certain harm and (2) that the 24 harm that it is likely to suffer qualifies as irreparable … “Those seeking injunctive relief must 26 proffer evidence sufficient to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm.” Id. at 1251.