Case law

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

HM Electronics, Inc. v. R.F. Technologies, Inc.

171 F. Supp. 3d 1020 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 15, 2016

Thus, “[t]o qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication, an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Arizonans for Official English v. … Although the line between the two is not *1027 always clear, the general principles guiding the inquiry are well-established. See Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 827-28 , 114 S.Ct. 2552 .

Erhart v. Bofi Holding Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · Apr 2, 2020

Under Rule 701, a lay 5 witness may provide opinion testimony if it is: “(a) rationally based on the witness’s 6 perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to 7 determining … This rule establishes several requirements for 25 this testimony: (1) the witness must be sufficiently qualified as an expert by 26 knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education; (2) the scientific,

(PC) Brass v. Montgomery

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 10, 2023

. § 1915, indigency is the benchmark for whether a plaintiff qualifies 10 for IFP status. The determination of indigency falls within the district court’s sound 11 discretion. Cal. Men’s Colony v. … filed by a prisoner seeking redress from a governmental entity, or officer or 22 employee of a governmental entity, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or 23 seeks damages from defendants who are immune

Rincon Mushroom Corporation of America v. Bo Mazzetti

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 18, 2021

Defendants Tribe and Tribal Officials contend that 13 bifurcation could eliminate the need to resolve issues of tribal sovereign immunity, official 14 immunity, res judicata, collateral estoppel, and whether … Defendant Tribe’s immunity 15 prohibits Plaintiffs’ third-party claims against Third-Party Defendants SDG&E and 16 County.

Lewis v. Paramo

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 13, 2022

April 22, 2015) (noting there is no clearly 6 established federal law that “a prisoner has a right to be free from false accusations”); Smith 7 v. Albee, No. 2:15-cv-1598 KJN, 2016 WL 6094471, at *4 (E.D. Cal. … ALL PAYMENTS 24 SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO 25 THIS ACTION. 26 3.

Turley v. Lezano

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 28, 2023

The Court finds Plaintiff has established an inability to pay filing fee and 22 GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Motion. … ALL PAYMENTS 3 ||SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO 4 || THIS ACTION. 5 3.

Matheis v. CDCR

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 5, 2021

“To establish § 1983 liability, a Plaintiff must show both (1) deprivation of a right 10 secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was 11 committed by a person acting under … ALL PAYMENTS 17 SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO 18 THIS ACTION. 19 4.

Stoff v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 22, 2021

“Multiplying figures clearly stated in a complaint is an aspect of that 5 duty.” Id. (citing Carvalho v. Equifax Info. … Having established the meaning of “if not,” the Court 16 continues its analysis. 17 1.

Bowman v. Heath and Human Services Agency

District Court, S.D. California · Dec 13, 2021

Delatoore, 281 12 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). 13 To qualify, section 1915(a)(2) requires prisoners seeking leave to proceed IFP to 14 submit a “certified copy of the … PAYMENTS 27 MUST BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO 28 THIS ACTION. 1 3.

Reed v. Buckel

District Court, S.D. California · May 14, 2024

Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff has established an inability to pay 7 the required $350 filing fee and GRANTS his March 14, 2024 IFP motion (Doc. … 2)(B) and § 1915A(b), the Court must screen a 19 prisoner’s IFP complaint and sua sponte dismiss it to the extent that it is frivolous, 20 malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune

Hodges v. Gloria

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 24, 2024

(FAC [Doc. 7] ¶¶ 12, 22.) 24 Members of the Advisory Board “serve until his or her successor is duly appointed and 25 qualified.” (Id. ¶ 30, citing San Diego Municipal Code (S.D.M.C.) § 26.0802(a).) … Members then serve for “a two-year term and each member shall 11 serve until his or her successor is duly appointed and qualified.” Id.

Nogales v. Madden

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

The clearly 20 established Supreme Court law here is that “mandatory life-without-parole sentences for 21 juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment.” Miller, 567 U.S. at 470. … court’s denial of Nogales’s equal protection claim was neither contrary to, 19 nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law.

Kimball v. Flagstar Bank F.S.B.

881 F. Supp. 2d 1209 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 25, 2012

Plaintiffs, however, have failed to establish that equitable tolling should apply in this case. … The implementing regulation for 1635(b) establishes a similar protocol for the borrower and creditor upon rescission. See 12 C.F.R. § 226.23 .

Sandoval v. City of National City

District Court, S.D. California · May 5, 2023

Sandoval fails to 10 allege facts that she is a qualified heir. (Dkt. … 56, relying on California state law immunity. 3 F.

Gardner v. Del Toro

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 16, 2022

Disputed that the memorandum 27 comes anywhere close to immunizing the Defendant from liability.” DSS No. 20. This is not a valid basis for disputing the fact. … Plaintiff has not cited any evidence of “clearly . . . racist [ ] or similarly 6 discriminatory statements or actions by Defendant.” See id.

Johnson v. Saul

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 25, 2021

Oct. 7, 2008) (“It is established that § 405(g) is a statute of limitations. … However, it is likewise 21 a condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity and thus has been strictly construed to permit extension only in special circumstances. Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature.

Arcasi v. Allison

District Court, S.D. California · Apr 18, 2022

Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 97- 28 98 (2011), quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2). 1 A decision is “contrary to” clearly established law if “the state court arrives at a 2 conclusion opposite … A decision 5 involves an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law if “the state court 6 identifies the correct governing legal principle . . . but unreasonably applies that principle 7 to the facts

Greer v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 7, 2022

Courts, however, have rejected attempts to 12 immunize documents from disclosure by simply involving an attorney in the investigation. 13 See, e.g., United States v. ISS Marine Servs., Inc., 905 F. … Griffith, 161 F.R.D. at 698-99 (“memorandum [that] would 13 have been generated whether or not litigation was pending, . . . does not qualify as attorney 14 work product.”); Kelly, 114 F.R.D. at 659 (holding “[s]ince