Broderick Warfield v. Solano County Superior Court, et al.
This text of Broderick Warfield v. Solano County Superior Court, et al. (Broderick Warfield v. Solano County Superior Court, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRODERICK WARFIELD,
12 Plaintiff, No. 2:25-cv-00557-TLN-SCR
13 14 v. ORDER SOLANO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 15 et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Broderick Warfield’s (“Plaintiff”) 20 Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s May 30, 2025 Order and request for a protective 21 order. (ECF No. 30.) No opposition has been filed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 22 DENIES Plaintiff’s motion and request. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 On February 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint against approximately fifteen defendants 3 including law enforcement divisions, state court judges, county prosecutors, and public defenders, 4 concerning two phone calls made to 911 in November of 2011. (ECF No. 1 at 9.) Plaintiff filed a 5 First Amended Complaint on April 10, 2025, and a Second Amended Complaint on May 5, 2025, 6 without leave of court. (ECF Nos. 13, 20.) On May 6, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued 7 findings and recommendations, recommending Plaintiff’s action be dismissed without leave to 8 amend.1 (ECF No. 18.) The magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations detailed the 9 procedural history of Plaintiff’s previous actions on the same subject matter. (Id. at 3–4.) 10 Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 21.) He also filed 11 several motions, primarily motions to seal. (ECF Nos. 22, 23, 24, 26.) On May 30, 2025, this 12 Court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in full, dismissed the action 13 with prejudice, and closed the case. (ECF No. 27.) On the same day, the Clerk of the Court 14 entered Judgment. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of this Court’s May 30, 15 2025 Order (ECF No. 27) and seeks a protective order. (ECF No. 30.) 16 II. STANDARD OF LAW 17 The Court may grant reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 18 59(e) or 60. See Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 458–59 (9th Cir. 1995). A motion to alter 19 or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) must be filed no later than twenty-eight days after the 20 entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Therefore, a “motion for reconsideration” is treated as a 21 motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) if it is filed within twenty-eight days of entry 22 of judgment; otherwise, it is treated as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment or order. 23 Rishor v. Ferguson, 822 F.3d 482, 490 (9th Cir. 2016); see Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. 24 Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898–99 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff’s motion was filed within 25 twenty-eight days of entry of judgment and is therefore construed as a motion to alter or amend 26
27 1 Along with issuing findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and denied Plaintiff’s thirteen motions to seal. (ECF No. 28 18.) 1 the judgment under Rule 59(e). 2 Rule 59(e) does not list specific grounds for a motion to amend or alter, therefore the 3 district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying the motion. Allstate Ins. Co. v. 4 Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 5 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999)). Nevertheless, a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) “should not be 6 granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly 7 discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling 8 law.” McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Further, “[a] motion 9 for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when 10 they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. 11 Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted) (emphasis in 12 original). 13 “In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: 14 (1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment 15 rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable 16 evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is 17 justified by an intervening change in controlling law.” Allstate Ins. Co., 634 F.3d at 1111. 18 III. ANALYSIS 19 Turning first to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff appears to argue this 20 Court’s May 30, 2025 Order should be reconsidered because two of his exhibits were overlooked 21 and not properly considered. (ECF No. 30 at 2–3.) Specifically, Plaintiff contends Exhibit X-1 to 22 his Amended Motion to Seal (ECF No. 7) and Exhibit “Vital Statistics” to his Ex Parte Motion to 23 File Under Seal (ECF No. 12) were overlooked and should have been considered in the 24 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 30 at 2–3.) Plaintiff later appears to 25 argue that newly discovered evidence supports his Motion for Reconsideration. (Id. at 5.) 26 Plaintiff describes the new evidence, “Exhibit US FISCAL REPORT” (ECF No. 22), as related to 27 the “newly added HIPPA compliance privacy security rule violation” in his Joinder Motion (ECF 28 No. 23). (ECF No. 30 at 5.) Plaintiff also mentions a newly added defendant, “defendant # 19.” 1 (Id.) 2 Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient facts or arguments to justify reconsideration of this 3 Court’s prior Order under Rule 59(e). See Allstate Ins. Co., 634 F.3d at 1111 (listing the four 4 basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted). First, Plaintiff does not identify 5 any manifest error of law or fact with respect to the consideration afforded to the two exhibits 6 Plaintiff identifies in his motion. There is no indication that the magistrate judge did not consider 7 these exhibits. The magistrate judge’s order and findings and recommendations cite the motions 8 containing these exhibits. (See ECF No. 18 at 7–8.) 9 Second, Plaintiff does not present newly discovered evidence. Plaintiff claims certain 10 exhibits are newly discovered evidence. (ECF No. 30 at 5 (referencing ECF Nos. 22, 23).) 11 However, these exhibits were submitted in support of motions filed before the Court entered the 12 contested Order and Judgment. These exhibits therefore cannot be considered newly discovered. 13 See Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (recognizing parties cannot use 14 Rule 59(e) to “present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment”). 15 Finally, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate how reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest 16 injustice or is justified by an intervening change in controlling law. Plaintiff also does not 17 describe how adding a new defendant is a permissible basis for reconsideration of the Court’s 18 Order. See Allstate Ins. Co., 634 F.3d at 1111. For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s 19 Motion for Reconsideration. 20 The Court now addresses Plaintiff’s request for a protective order. The Court has 21 reviewed Plaintiff’s request for a protective order and finds it is hard to discern what relief 22 Plaintiff requests. (ECF No.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Broderick Warfield v. Solano County Superior Court, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broderick-warfield-v-solano-county-superior-court-et-al-caed-2025.