Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00129/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00129-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Violation 5th &amp; 8th Amendment

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRODERICK WARFIELD,

Plaintiff,

v.

PALADIN SECURITY,

Defendant.

No. 2: 17-cv-0129 TLN CKD PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. In this action, plaintiff 

alleges claims arising out of an interaction he had with a security guard. The complaint fails to 

set forth a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. 

By order filed January 26, 2017, plaintiff was ordered to show cause no later than 

February 7, 2017 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff has not filed a response to the order to show cause.1 There being no evident basis for 

subject matter jurisdiction, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction.

 

1

 On February 2, 2017, plaintiff filed a one-page document titled “Amended Complaint.” 

However, no allegations are set forth in the amended complaint and the document comprises only 

the face page of a complaint.

Case 2:17-cv-00129-TLN-CKD Document 7 Filed 02/13/17 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: February 13, 2017

4 warfield0129.nosmj.57

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:17-cv-00129-TLN-CKD Document 7 Filed 02/13/17 Page 2 of 2