Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02886/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02886-0/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)

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

(ECF Nos. 2-9, 11) 

Plaintiff Broderick Warfield, who is proceeding pro se, has filed eight 

miscellaneous motions.1 (ECF No. 10). Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local 

Rules 230(g) and 231(c), the motions are submitted upon the record and the briefs.

2

For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions. 

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).

The Complaint names as defendants California Highway Patrol Golden Gate Division 

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

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

Case 2:24-cv-02886-DJC-CSK Document 12 Filed 12/02/24 Page 1 of 8
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

(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 indication that any defendant has been served. See Docket. 

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

In the six weeks since filing his Complaint, Plaintiff filed eight (8) miscellaneous 

motions. On November 18, 2024, Plaintiff also filed an ex parte motion for a Temporary 

Restraining Order (“TRO”). See Pl. TRO (ECF No. 10); Pl. TRO Checklist (ECF No. 10-

1). The Court addresses Plaintiff’s ex parte TRO motion through separate findings and 

recommendations. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. IFP Application

Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed IFP. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff has not, 

however, provided sufficient information for the Court to determine whether to grant the 

request. See Pl. IFP App.; Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) 

Case 2:24-cv-02886-DJC-CSK Document 12 Filed 12/02/24 Page 2 of 8
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

(a plaintiff must allege poverty with “particularity, definiteness and certainty”) (citation 

omitted). For example, Plaintiff left Question 2 regarding employment and Question 7 

regarding dependents blank, and did not complete Question 3 regarding other income 

(not selecting “Yes” or “No” boxes for 3(a)-3(f)). Plaintiff’s IFP application is therefore 

denied without prejudice. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall 

either file a complete application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs responding 

to all questions, or pay the required filing fee. If Plaintiff submits a complete IFP 

application and IFP status is granted, the Complaint will be screened as required by 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 

B. Plaintiff’s Eight Other Miscellaneous Motions (ECF Nos. 3-9, 11)

Plaintiff has filed eight miscellaneous motions in the six weeks since initiating this 

lawsuit. The Court rules on the motions as follows:

(1) On October 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “motion for joinder” of “all 

named defendants.” (ECF No. 3.) This motion is denied because it is unclear what 

this motion is seeking as all defendants identified in the document are defendants 

already named in the Complaint. Compare id., with Compl. In addition, this motion 

is also not signed by Plaintiff personally. See Pl. Mot. Joinder. If a party is 

unrepresented by an attorney, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) requires that 

“[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed” by a party 

personally. In addition, the “paper must state the signer's address, e-mail 

address, and telephone number.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Plaintiff is instructed that 

while he remains unrepresented, he must personally sign every pleading, motion, 

and other paper submitted to the Court. See id. 

(2) On October 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file 

documents electronically in this action. (ECF No. 4.) The Court declines to grant 

this request. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 133(a), 133(b)(2). This motion is also not 

signed by Plaintiff personally.

/ / /

Case 2:24-cv-02886-DJC-CSK Document 12 Filed 12/02/24 Page 3 of 8
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

(3) On October 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “motion to redact confidential 

personal information Amended Dec. 1, 2023 Federal Rule of Evidence 702,” 

redacting date of birth, Social Security numbers, and financial account numbers.

(ECF No. 5 at 2.) The motion attaches various redacted Fairfield Police 

Department records. The Court interprets this filing as a motion to seal, and 

denies it. While the information Plaintiff seeks to redact are proper subjects for 

redaction, this motion is denied because Plaintiff failed to follow Local Rule 141 

regarding requests to seal. This motion is also not signed by Plaintiff personally. 

In addition, there is no motion pending before the Court that requires the Court to 

review the submitted Fairfield Police Department records. Finally, this document 

appears to be a discovery-related document. Discovery is served between the 

parties, and should not be filed with the Court. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on 

October 18, 2024, and his Complaint has not yet been screened due to 

incomplete information. Even if Plaintiff declines to request proceeding IFP, there 

is no indication that any defendant has been served or has any notice of this 

lawsuit. The discovery stage, including the Rule 26(f) conference, initial 

disclosures, and any discovery requests, has not yet begun. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(d)(1) (“A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties 

have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from 

initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by 

stipulation, or by court order.”). For future reference, Plaintiff is also directed to 

follow Local Rules 140 and 141 regarding redactions and sealing of documents.

(4) On November 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for in camera review of 

Plaintiff’s exhibits. (ECF No. 6.) This motion is denied because there is no motion 

pending before the Court that requires the Court to review Plaintiff’s exhibits. As 

described above, the Complaint has not been screened and the discovery stage 

has not commenced. If this lawsuit continues to trial, the Court will set deadlines 

for the parties to submit exhibit lists to the Court. This motion is also not signed by 

Case 2:24-cv-02886-DJC-CSK Document 12 Filed 12/02/24 Page 4 of 8
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

Plaintiff personally.

(5) On November 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of 

time. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff states that he seeks an extension through November 

30, 2024 to “introduce additional co-defendants through extrinsic evidence.” Id. at 

2. It is unclear what this means. Regardless, this motion is denied because there 

are no pending court deadlines and therefore no deadlines to extend. This motion 

is also not signed by Plaintiff personally. 

(6) On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “motion for compulsory 

joinder.” (ECF No. 9.) Unlike Plaintiff’s first motion for joinder (ECF No. 3), this 

motion seeks to join defendants not currently named in the Complaint. See id. at 2 

(identifying new defendants Solano County Public Defender’s Office, Department 

of State Hospitals, Daily Republic News Reporter Jess Sullivan, and Melvin Hale).

This motion is also not signed by Plaintiff personally. This motion is denied as 

unnecessary. Based on the current posture of this lawsuit, the proper procedure 

for Plaintiff to add new defendants is to file an amended complaint. Under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), Plaintiff may amend his Complaint “once as a 

matter of course” either 21 days after serving the Complaint on Defendants or “21 

days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion 

under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” This means that Plaintiff may 

file an amended complaint at this time without seeking and receiving permission 

from the Court or with the opposing parties’ written consent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(b).

If Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff must do so within 

thirty (30) days of the date of this order. It should be titled “First Amended 

Complaint” with reference to the appropriate case number. An amended 

complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See 

Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Plaintiff 

is warned that a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not 

Case 2:24-cv-02886-DJC-CSK Document 12 Filed 12/02/24 Page 5 of 8
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

suffice to state a claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. To state a 

claim on which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must allege enough facts “to state 

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim 

has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court 

to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 

alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Any First Amended Complaint should clearly 

identify all parties, the claims being brought, and against which defendants each 

claim is being brought. As already instructed above, Plaintiff must personally sign 

every pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a).

(7) On November 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “motion to introduce witness 

and evidence.” (ECF No. 8.) This motion is denied as premature. As described 

above, the Complaint has not been screened and the discovery stage has not 

commenced. If this lawsuit continues to trial, the Court will set deadlines for the 

parties to submit witness and exhibit lists to the Court. This motion is also not 

signed by Plaintiff personally.

(8) On November 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a second request to seal 

documents. (ECF No. 11.) This request is denied because there is no motion 

pending before the Court that requires the Court to review these documents. In 

addition, as described above, the Complaint has not been screened, the 

discovery stage has not commenced, and the parties should not file discovery 

with the Court. 

C. Additional Instructions for Plaintiff

Plaintiff is further instructed as follows:

(1) When filing a motion with the Court, clearly state what relief 

you are requesting from the Court and against which party.

(2) Do not file discovery or evidence with the Court unless ordered 

to do so by the Court or unless there is a motion pending that requires the 

Case 2:24-cv-02886-DJC-CSK Document 12 Filed 12/02/24 Page 6 of 8
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

7

Court to review the discovery or evidence in order to resolve the pending 

motion.

(3) Do not file duplicative, frivolous, or serial motions. The Court 

notes that apart from his ex parte TRO motion, Plaintiff filed eight different 

motions, including two motions to seal and two motions for “joinder,” in the six 

weeks after filing his Complaint. See Docket. Filing duplicative, frivolous, or serial

motions interferes with the Court’s ability to efficiently manage its heavy caseload 

and creates unnecessary delay in the resolution of cases. Plaintiff must also wait 

for the Court to review and issue a decision on each motion before filing a similar 

or duplicative motion. In addition, once the Complaint is served and defendants 

have appeared in the action, Plaintiff must also wait for the other side (i.e., the 

defendants) to respond to Plaintiff’s motion. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230.

(4) Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to follow the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, the district court’s Local Rules, or the Court’s orders 

may result in the imposition of sanctions.

III. CONCLUSION

It is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s IFP application (ECF No. 2) is DENIED without prejudice. Within 

thirty (30) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall either file a complete application to 

proceed without prepaying fees or costs responding to all questions, or pay the required 

filing fee.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide Plaintiff with a blank copy of 

the Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs.

3. Plaintiff’s “motion for joinder” (ECF No. 3) is DENIED.

4. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file documents electronically in this action 

(ECF No. 4) is DENIED.

5. Plaintiff’s “motion to redact confidential personal information Amended 

Dec. 1, 2023 Federal Rule of Evidence 702” (ECF No. 5) is DENIED.

Case 2:24-cv-02886-DJC-CSK Document 12 Filed 12/02/24 Page 7 of 8
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

8

6. Plaintiff’s motion for in camera review of Plaintiff’s exhibits (ECF No. 6) is 

DENIED.

7. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 7) is DENIED.

8. Plaintiff’s “motion to introduce witness and evidence” (ECF No. 8) is 

DENIED.

9. Plaintiff’s “motion for compulsory joinder” (ECF No. 9) is DENIED. If 

Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff must do so within thirty (30) days of 

the date of this order. It should be titled “First Amended Complaint” with reference to the 

appropriate case number. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 

reference to any prior pleading. See Loux, 375 F.2d at 57; E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220.

10. Plaintiff’s second request to seal documents (ECF No. 11) is DENIED.

Dated: December 2, 2024

Case 2:24-cv-02886-DJC-CSK Document 12 Filed 12/02/24 Page 8 of 8