(PS) Warfield v. California Highway Patrol

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRODERICK WARFIELD, Case No. 2:24-cv-02886-DJC-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS 14 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL (ECF Nos. 19-23, 26-27, 35-44) GOLDEN GATE DIVISION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Broderick Warfield, who is proceeding pro se, has filed seventeen (17) 18 miscellaneous motions that are currently pending before the Court. (ECF Nos. 19-23, 26- 19 27, 35-44.) Pursuant to E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g), the motions are submitted upon the 20 record and the briefs. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions. 21 The Court rules on the motions as follows: 22 1. Plaintiff has filed multiple requests to seal documents. (ECF Nos. 19-23, 23 26, 35, 37-38, 40-42, 44.) These requests are denied because there are no 24 motions pending before the Court that require the Court to review these 25 documents. The motions are also not signed personally by Plaintiff as required. 26 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); E.D. Cal. L. R. 131(b). In addition, the First Amended 27 Complaint has not yet been screened and discovery has not yet commenced. See 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) (“A party may not seek discovery from any source before 1 the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding 2 exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by 3 these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.”). 4 2. Plaintiff has filed a motion for in camera review of Plaintiff’s exhibits. (ECF 5 No. 27.) This motion is denied because there is no motion pending before the 6 Court that requires the Court to review Plaintiff’s exhibits. The motion is also not 7 signed personally by Plaintiff as required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); E.D. Cal. L. 8 R. 131(b). In addition, as described above, the First Amended Complaint has not 9 been screened and discovery has not yet commenced. 10 3. Plaintiff has filed two motions to strike Plaintiff’s Exhibit X-1 that he seeks 11 to have filed under seal. (ECF Nos. 36, 39.) These motions are denied as moot 12 because the Court has denied Plaintiff’s requests to file under seal as described 13 above. These motions are also not signed personally by Plaintiff as required. See 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); E.D. Cal. L. R. 131(b). 15 4. Plaintiff has filed an ex parte motion for leave to seal “previously filed 16 documents in case” and for a stay of the proceedings. (ECF No. 43.) The motion 17 as it relates to a request to seal is denied because there is no motion pending 18 before the Court that requires the Court to review Plaintiff’s exhibits. Plaintiff also 19 moves for a stay “to protect the interests of all parties involved and prevent any 20 potential harm.” ECF No. 43 at 2. The motion is also denied as to the request for 21 a stay because Plaintiff has not established the necessity of a stay. See Clinton v. 22 Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997) (“The proponent of a stay bears the burden of 23 establishing its need.”). As described above, the First Amended Complaint has 24 not been screened and Plaintiff is not currently under any court-ordered 25 deadlines. In addition, the motion is not signed personally by Plaintiff as required. 26 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); E.D. Cal. L. R. 131(b). 27 Plaintiff has previously been warned to “not file discovery or evidence with the 28 Court unless ordered to do so by the Court or unless there is a motion pending 1 | that requires the Court to review the discovery or evidence in order to resolve the 2 | pending motion.” See 12/02/2024 Order at 6-7 (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff was also 3 | previously warned to “not file duplicative, frivolous, or serial motions’ as it “interferes 4 | with the Court’s ability to efficiently manage its heavy caseload and creates unnecessary 5 || delay in the resolution of cases.” /d. at 7. Plaintiff was also further cautioned that “failure 6 | to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court’s Local Rules, or 7 | the Court’s orders may result in the imposition of sanctions.” /d. Despite this, 8 | Plaintiff has failed to follow the Court’s instructions by filing multiple duplicative and serial 9 | motions. 10 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Plaintiff's requests to seal (ECF Nos. 19-23, 26, 35, 37-38, 40-42, 44) are 12 DENIED; 13 2. Plaintiffs motion for in camera review of Plaintiff's exhibits (ECF No. 27) is 14 DENIED; 15 3. Plaintiffs motions to strike Plaintiff's exhibit (ECF Nos. 36, 39) are DENIED 16 as moot; and 17 4. Plaintiff ex parte motion for leave to seal and to stay the proceedings (ECF 18 No. 43) is DENIED. 19 20 | Dated: April 18, 2025 C i s \U a1 CHI SOO KIM 99 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 || 4, warf2886.24 25 26 27 28