Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02886/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02886-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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.

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 

GOLDEN GATE DIVISION, ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-2886-DJC-CSK (PS)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE 

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER

(ECF No. 10)

Plaintiff Broderick Warfield, who is proceeding pro se, has filed an ex parte motion 

for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”).

1 Pl. TRO Mot. (ECF No. 10). The Complaint 

names as defendants California Highway Patrol Golden Gate Division (Kevin Hagler, 

Angelie Baker, and Dawn McGuckin), City of Fairfield Police Department (Walt Tibbet, 

“Aagaard,” Gene Carter, and “Oviatt”), City of Vallejo Police Department (Mat Mustard), 

Solano County Sheriff’s Office of Emergency 911 Services (Executive Director), Solano 

County District Attorneys (Bryan Kim, Karen Jensen, Paul Sequeira, Eric Cowdery, and 

Dana Vaugen), and Solano County Superior Court Judges D. Stashyn William

Pendergast III, Bradley Nelson, and Peter Foor. Compl. at 2-3 (ECF No. 1). There is no 

1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 

Case 2:24-cv-02886-DJC-CSK Document 13 Filed 12/02/24 Page 1 of 6
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

indication that any defendant has received notice of Plaintiff’s TRO motion. See Docket. 

Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rules 230(g) and 231(c), the motion is

submitted upon the record and the briefs.

2

For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends DENYING Plaintiff’s ex parte 

TRO motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his Complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 

without prepaying fees or costs on October 18, 2024. Compl.; Pl. IFP App. (ECF No. 2).3

Plaintiff alleges violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth 

Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on “Law enforcement concealment 

suppression of federal rule evidence 702 by failing to apply Daubert Trilogy Theory upon 

Emergency Alert Plan Protocols with Solano County Sheriff’s Emergency 

communications 911 OES.” Compl. at 4, 6. The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims are 

“Mishandled Credible threat 911 calls”; 11/05/2011 Willful neglect and disregard resulting 

dereliction of duty 11/17/2011”; and “on duty police officer loss of life.” Compl. at 6. The 

Complaint alleges damages in excess of $75,000, and seeks temporary and permanent 

injunctive relief against Defendants “California Highway Patrol Golden Gate Division, 

City of Fairfield Police Department, Solano County Sheriff’s Emergency Communications 

911 Services, and the City of Vallejo Police Department.” Compl. at 5-6, 7-8

On November 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for a TRO. See Pl. TRO 

Mot.; Pl. TRO Checklist (ECF No. 10-1). In the six weeks since filing his Complaint, 

Plaintiff also filed eight miscellaneous motions that are addressed by separate order. 

(ECF No. 12.)

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

The standard for issuing a TRO is the same as the standard for issuing a 

2 The district court’s Local Rules are accessible on the district court’s website: 

https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/rules/local-rules/. 3 The IFP application is addressed by separate order. (ECF No. 12.)

Case 2:24-cv-02886-DJC-CSK Document 13 Filed 12/02/24 Page 2 of 6
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

3

preliminary injunction, which requires the plaintiff to “establish that he is likely to succeed 

on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 

relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public 

interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Because the first 

factor “is a threshold inquiry and is the most important factor,” a “court need not consider 

the other factors” if a movant fails to show a likelihood of success on the merits. Baird v. 

Bonta, 81 F.4th 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted).

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right,”

and may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. 

Winter, 555 U.S. at 22, 24 (citation omitted). “Under Winter, plaintiffs must establish that 

irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” 

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011).

III. DISCUSSION

The Court recommends denial of Plaintiff’s TRO motion because it is unclear what 

relief Plaintiff seeks; it is procedurally deficient; and the Court lacks authority to issue an 

order for individuals and entities who are not parties to a suit pending before it.

4

A. RELIEF SOUGHT IN TRO

In his TRO motion, it is unclear what relief Plaintiff seeks. Plaintiff states that a 

TRO is needed “to address urgent matters related to systematically suppressed federal 

rule of evidence 702. The temporary restraining order concerns the plaintiffs both 

mishandled 911 credible threats reported and documented within Exhibit A-1 page 3 

paragraphs 1, and 3.” Pl. TRO Mot. at 2. Plaintiff refers to two “911 credible threats” 

made prior to or on November 17, 2011, which resulted in the loss of an officer’s life. Id. 

4 To the extent Plaintiff intended his October 29, 2024 motion to seal (ECF No. 5) and 

November 4, 2024 motion for in camera review of Plaintiff’s exhibits (ECF No. 6) to be 

considered in support of his ex parte TRO motion filed weeks later, consideration of 

these documents do not change the Court’s recommendation that the TRO motion be 

denied on the grounds described herein. The October 29 and November 4, 2024 

motions are addressed by separate order. (ECF No. 12.) 

Case 2:24-cv-02886-DJC-CSK Document 13 Filed 12/02/24 Page 3 of 6
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

4

at 2; Pl. TRO Checklist at 2. It appears that Plaintiff may be challenging the suppression 

of evidence in unknown and separate court proceedings, which is the not proper subject 

of a TRO in this action. See Pl. TRO Mot. & Pl. TRO Checklist. Plaintiff also makes 

conclusory statements such as, he “seeks relief under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

65] due to ongoing violations that pose an immediate threat of irreparable harm.” Pl. 

TRO Mot. at 2. The Court recommends denying the TRO motion because it is unclear 

what relief is actually sought, and an order cannot issue granting unknown relief.

B. Plaintiff’s TRO Motion is Procedurally Deficient

Plaintiff moves ex parte for a temporary restraining order pursuant to Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure 65. Rule 65(b)(1) permits the court to issue a TRO without 

notice to the adverse party only if (1) specific facts in the affidavit or underlying pleading 

show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result before the 

opposing party may be heard; and (2) the movant certifies in writing efforts made to give 

notice and the reasons why notice should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). This 

Court’s Local Rules also set forth certain procedural mandates for a temporary 

restraining order to issue, including that the movant provide the following documents: 

(1) a complaint; (2) a motion for temporary restraining order; (3) a brief on the relevant 

legal issues; (4) an affidavit to support the existence of irreparable harm; (5) an affidavit 

detailing the notice or efforts undertaken or showing good cause why notice should not 

be given; (6) a proposed temporary restraining order and provision for bond; (7) a 

proposed order with blank for fixing time and date for a hearing; and (8) where a 

temporary restraining order is requested ex parte, the proposed order should also notify 

the affected parties of the right to apply to the Court for modification or dissolution on two 

(2) days’ notice or such shorter notice as the Court may allow. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 

231(c). 

Plaintiff’s TRO motion is procedurally deficient on three grounds. First, Plaintiff 

has not complied with the requirement to provide notice to all affected parties, which he 

concedes. See Pl. TRO Checklist at 1 (Plaintiff responded “None” to TRO Checklist Item 

Case 2:24-cv-02886-DJC-CSK Document 13 Filed 12/02/24 Page 4 of 6
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

5

B, “Has there been actual notice, or a sufficient showing of efforts to provide notice to the 

affected party?”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 231(a) & 231(c)(5). In 

addition, Plaintiff has not provided any showing of his reasonable efforts to notify 

Defendants, or reasons why notice on Defendants should not be required. See Pl. TRO 

Mot.. There is no reference in Plaintiff’s motion and accompanying documents, or the 

docket regarding any such reasonable efforts. See Pl. TRO Mot.; Docket. Courts 

regularly deny TROs for failing to comply with the stringent requirements of Rule

65(b)(1), including those sought by pro se plaintiffs. See Reno Air Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. 

McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (“courts have recognized very few 

circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte TRO”); Abdel-Malak v. Doe, 2020 

WL 5775818, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2020) (denying TRO sought by pro se plaintiff for 

failure to satisfy Rule 65(b)’s “strict requirements”); Seymour v. U.S. Dep't of Def., 2010 

WL 3385994, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2010) (same); Roman v. Nw. Tr. Servs., Inc., 

2010 WL 3489962, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 31, 2010) (same). 

Second, to issue a TRO without notice to Defendants as the adverse parties, Rule 

65(b)(1) also requires that specific facts in the affidavit or underlying pleading show that 

immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result before the opposing party 

may be heard. Plaintiff’s TRO documents does not make this required showing. See Pl. 

TRO Mot.; Pl. TRO Checklist.

Third, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Local Rules’ requirements for TROs is 

sufficient justification to deny the motion. See Tri-Valley CAREs v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 

671 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Denial of a motion as the result of a failure to 

comply with local rules is well within a district court’s discretion.”). Plaintiff has not 

complied with the requirements of Local Rule 231(c)(4)-(8).

The Court therefore recommends denial of the TRO motion based on these 

procedural deficiencies.

C. The Court Lacks Authority to Grant a TRO

The Court is unable to issue an order for or against individuals and entities who 

Case 2:24-cv-02886-DJC-CSK Document 13 Filed 12/02/24 Page 5 of 6
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

6

are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, 

Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969); see also Zepeda v. U.S. Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 

719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983) (explaining that the scope of an injunction is limited to the 

parties in the action). Plaintiff’s TRO identifies new defendants who are not named in the 

original Complaint. Compare Compl., with Pl. TRO Mot. at 1 (caption listing new 

defendants). Plaintiff has improperly attempted to name the Solano County Public 

Defender’s Office, “DSH, Hospitals,” Daily Republic Newspaper, MHM Services of 

California, Inc., “Vacaville City Hall Mayorship,” and Melvin Hale “aka Mr. Hell” as new 

defendants in his TRO motion. See Pl. TRO Mot. at 1. 

Therefore, the Court also recommends denial of Plaintiff’s TRO motion because 

the Court lacks authority to issue an order for individuals and entities who are not parties 

to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 112; Zepeda, 753 F.2d 

at 727; Pac. Radiation Oncology, 810 F.3d at 633, 636.

IV. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s ex parte TRO motion 

(ECF No. 10) be DENIED.

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)(1). Within 

14 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. This document should 

be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any 

reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14

days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,

455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: December 2, 2024

Case 2:24-cv-02886-DJC-CSK Document 13 Filed 12/02/24 Page 6 of 6