(PC) Warfield v. Tibbet et al

Filing 51

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 06/05/2024 ADOPTING 15 Findings and Recommendations in full; Plaintiff's 12 third amended complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend; Plaintiff's 2 motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot; Plaintiff's 14 & 38 motions for temporary restraining orders are DENIED as moot; Plaintiff's 34 motion to stay is DENIED as moot; The documents currently SEALED at 41 shall remain SEALED until fu rther court order; Plaintiff's 43 motion to amend his complaint is DENIED as moot; Plaintiff's 45 motion to redact exhibits is DENIED as moot; Plaintiff's 50 motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is DENIED as moot; and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. CASE CLOSED. (Lopez, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRODERICK JAMES WARFIELD,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:23-cv-01546 KJM DB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

WALT TIBBET, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief

18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided

19

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On September 18, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

21

were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings

22

and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. F&Rs, ECF No. 15. Plaintiff has filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations. Obj., ECF No. 18. Plaintiff also subsequently

24

filed a second motion for a temporary restraining order, see Second TRO, ECF No. 38, and

25

motions to seal and redact exhibits in support of this motion, see First Mot. to Seal, ECF No. 39;

26

Second Mot. to Seal, ECF No. 41; Mot. to Redact, ECF No. 45.

27
28

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, including plaintiff’s
1

1

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

2

by the proper analysis.

3

Furthermore, plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order is denied as moot.

4

Plaintiff requests the court order defendants to provide plaintiff with all relevant evidence and

5

allow plaintiff to “file complaints against defendants with the appropriate state agencies.” Second

6

TRO at 2. However, “[a] plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely

7

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

8

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

9

Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863, 876 (2015). Here, as explained by the magistrate judge, see

10

generally F&Rs, and adopted here, plaintiff has not shown he is likely to succeed on the merits.

11

Because the court dismisses this action without leave to amend, this second motion for a

12

temporary restraining order is denied as moot.

13

The court also denies plaintiff’s first motion to seal and his motion to redact exhibits as

14

moot. See First Mot. to Seal; Mot. to Redact. Plaintiff alleges the exhibits at issue “contain

15

sensitive and confidential information that, if made public, would cause irreparable harm to

16

[p]laintiff’s personal and professional reputation, as well as his safety and security.” First Mot. at

17

2. However, as described above, the court adopts the magistrate judge’s findings and

18

recommendations and dismisses plaintiff’s claims without leave to amend. An examination of the

19

documents plaintiff seeks to seal and redact does not change this conclusion. The court further

20

finds the documents filed and currently sealed under a temporary restriction at ECF No. 41 do not

21

change the decision to dismiss plaintiff’s claims without leave to amend. However, given the

22

documents have already been filed on the public docket and were placed under a temporary

23

restriction, these documents shall remain sealed until further court order. See Second Mot. to

24

Seal.

25

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

26

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 18, 2023, ECF No. 15, are

27
28

adopted in full;
/////
2

1
2

2. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint, ECF No. 12, is dismissed without leave to
amend;

3

3. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is denied as moot;

4

4. Plaintiff’s motions for temporary restraining orders, ECF Nos. 14, 38 are denied as

5

moot;

6

5. Plaintiff’s motion to stay, ECF No. 34, is denied as moot;

7

6. Plaintiff’s motion to seal, ECF No. 39, is denied;

8

7. The documents currently sealed at ECF No. 41 shall remain sealed until further court

9

order;

10

8. Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint, ECF No. 43, is denied as moot;

11

9. Plaintiff’s motion to redact exhibits, ECF No. 45 is denied as moot;

12

10. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief, ECF No. 50, is denied as

13

moot;

14

11. This action is dismissed with prejudice; and

15

12. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

16

DATED: June 5, 2024.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3