Case law

Armstrong v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 26, 2023

“To establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must show both (1) deprivation of a right 3 secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was 4 committed by a person acting under … ALL PAYMENTS MUST 10 BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS 11 ACTION. 12 3.

Serna v. Madden

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

Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 12 (9th Cir. 2002). 13 To qualify to proceed IFP, section 1915(a)(2) requires a prisoner to submit a 14 “certified … ALL PAYMENTS 21 MUST BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO 22 THIS ACTION; 23 (3) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to

French v. Xiong

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

Under these 7 statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of 8 it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants 9 who are immune. … ALL 20 PAYMENTS SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER 21 ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION. 22 3.

Rodriguez v. Sheriff Kelley Martinez

District Court, S.D. California · Oct 4, 2024

. . dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint,’ if it ‘(1) is frivolous, malicious, 9 or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from 10 a defendant who is immune … To state a claim under the ADA, Plaintiff must allege: 27 (1) he ‘is an individual with a disability;’ (2) he ‘is otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the benefit of some public entity’s services

Blake v. Orozco

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 16, 2023

Under these statutes, the Court 22 must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, 23 malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. … “To establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must show both (1) deprivation of a right 23 secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was 24 committed by a person acting under

Blake v. Moreno

District Court, S.D. California · Jan 11, 2024

(per curiam). 25 Under this statute, the Court must sua sponte dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of 26 it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants 27 who are immune … “To establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must show both (1) deprivation of a right 19 secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was 20 committed by a person acting under

Moody v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

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

Plaintiffs 24 identify no programs, activities or services for which they are qualified but were denied the 25 opportunity to participate in. … The Supreme Court dismissed the first question as 24 improvidently granted, found the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they 25 did not have “fair and clear warning of what the Constitution requires

Camran v. San Diego Youth Services

District Court, S.D. California · May 8, 2023

sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court if it is “(i) frivolous, or 20 malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks 21 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[I]t is well established that ‘a court 16 may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the 17 pendency of the action, even on appeal.

Wolinski v. Moseley

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 5, 2025

believes any defendant took any action because of that disability. 15 To state an ADA claim, Wolinski must allege: 16 (1) he is an individual with a disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified … To plausibly allege a federal due process claim, Wolinski 23 “must establish that one of these interests is at stake.” See Wilkinson v.

Indect USA Corp. v. Park Assist, LLC

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 28, 2021

“[W]hen an impossible limitation, such as a nonsensical method of 4 operation, is clearly embodied within the claim, the claimed invention must be held 5 invalid.” Process Control Corp. v. … Ex. 25, ECF No. 168-2. 28 No bright line rule establishes when the case or controversy requirement is met. 1 MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 127.

Pena

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

Although the Agreement establishes a non-compete period of five years, 10 the official start date of the five-year period is unclear as defined in the Agreement.4 11 On June 30, 2023, the Contracting Parties executed … A contractual restraint qualifies as a 11 “restraint of substantial character” if the restraint “significantly or materially impedes a 12 person’s lawful profession, trade, or business.”

(PC) Salcido v. Warden

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 28, 2019

Mere 19 negligence on the part of the prison official is not sufficient to establish liability—the 20 official’s conduct must have been wanton. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) 21 (citing Wilson v. … ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE CLEARLY 17 IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION. 18 3.

Hudson v. Simon

District Court, S.D. California · Mar 13, 2024

24 The Court must screen a prisoner’s IFP complaint and sua sponte dismiss it to the 25 extent that it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants 26 who are immune … ALL PAYMENTS MUST CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE NAME 10 AND CASE NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION. 11 3.

Cruz v. San Diego County Superior Court

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 24, 2021

Under these statutes, 17 the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which 18 is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are 19 immune … All 28 payments shall be clearly identified by the name and number assigned to this action. 1 3.

Fonseca v. Hewlett-Packard Company

District Court, S.D. California · Aug 11, 2020

His monthly pay is $5,200 and he has qualifying service . . . … Plaintiff argues that this discussion of the hiring period 13 shows that HP “clearly intended” the Rehire Policy to be part of the WFR plan. 14 First, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s Section 16600 claim is rooted

Juarez v. Hill

District Court, S.D. California · Apr 16, 2025

The Court must sua 14 sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, 15 malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. 16 Lopez v. … “To establish § 1983 liability, 6 a plaintiff must show both (1) deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws 7 of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under

Baffert v. Wunderler

District Court, S.D. California · Nov 15, 2024

The Court would not have done so. 6 DiCorcia’s motion clearly sought to strike the FAC in its entirety. See ECF Nos. 37 7 at 10 (“By this motion, DiCorcia invokes California’s anti-SLAPP law (Cal. … moot DiCorcia’s motion to strike that claim, ECF No. 35 at 67, the Court would have 11 also denied that motion to strike on the merits. 12 “Unlawful or criminal activities do not qualify

Hawkins v. Pollard

District Court, S.D. California · Jul 30, 2021

Under these 27 statutes, the Court must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, 28 which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who 1 are immune … ALL PAYMENTS 23 MUST BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO 24 THIS ACTION. 25 3.

Swan v. R. J. Donovan C.F.

District Court, S.D. California · Jun 14, 2022

Under these statutes, the Court must sua sponte 28 dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, that is frivolous, malicious, fails to 1 state a claim, or seeks damages from immune defendants. … “To establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must show both (1) deprivation of a 10 right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation 11 was committed by a person acting under

Irakunda v. Cates

District Court, S.D. California · Apr 14, 2021

that California’s invited error 13 doctrine is in fact clearly established and consistently applied. … The state court 12 adjudication of claim one is therefore neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application 13 of, clearly established federal law.