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. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL (ECF Nos. 17, 32) GOLDEN GATE DIVISION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Broderick Warfield is representing himself in this action and seeks leave 18 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 (ECF No. 17.) For 19 the reasons that follow, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied, and 20 the First Amended Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. 21 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides that the court may authorize the commencement, 23 prosecution or defense of any suit without prepayment of fees or security “by a person 24 who submits an affidavit stating the person is “unable to pay such fees or give security 25 therefor.” This affidavit is to include, among other things, a statement of all assets the 26 person possesses. Id. The IFP statute does not itself define what constitutes insufficient 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 1 assets. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). In Escobedo, 2 the Ninth Circuit stated that an affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient 3 where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay court costs and still afford the necessities of 4 life. Id. “One need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis 5 statute.” Id. Nonetheless, a party seeking IFP status must allege poverty “with some 6 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. According to the United States Department 7 of Health and Human Services, the current poverty guideline for a household of one (not 8 residing in Alaska or Hawaii) is $15,060.00. See U.S. Dpt. Health & Human Service 9 (available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines). 10 Here, Plaintiff’s IFP application does make the financial showing required by 11 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See ECF No. 17. However, Plaintiff’s IFP application is not signed 12 personally by Plaintiff as required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); E.D. Cal. L. R. 131(b). The 13 Court will recommend Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied because the action is facially 14 frivolous and without merit because it is duplicative of an earlier pending action in this 15 district. “‘A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it 16 appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without 17 merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. 18 First Nat. Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Dep’t of 19 Child Support Servs., 584 Fed. App’x. 638 (9th Cir. 2014) (“the district court did not 20 abuse its discretion by denying McGee's request to proceed IFP because it appears 21 from the face of the amended complaint that McGee's action is frivolous or without 22 merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the District 23 Court to examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine 24 whether the proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is 25 without merit, the court is bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma 26 pauperis.”). Because it appears from the face of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint that 27 this action is frivolous and is without merit as discussed in more detail below, the Court 28 recommends denying Plaintiff’s IFP motion. 1 II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 2 Even if the Court were to grant Plaintiff’s IFP application, Plaintiff’s First Amended 3 Complaint warrants dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)’s required pre-answer 4 screening. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma 5 pauperis proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” 6 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a 7 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 8 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000) (en banc). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an 9 arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In 10 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 11 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 12 construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See id. at 326-27; 13 Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 14 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 15 Pleadings by self-represented litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 16 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post-Iqbal). 17 However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 18 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 19 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does 20 not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); 21 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 22 To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege 23 enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 24 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows 25 the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 26 alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in 27 the complaint and an opportunity to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not 28 be cured by amendment. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL (ECF Nos. 17, 32) GOLDEN GATE DIVISION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Broderick Warfield is representing himself in this action and seeks leave 18 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 (ECF No. 17.) For 19 the reasons that follow, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied, and 20 the First Amended Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. 21 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) provides that the court may authorize the commencement, 23 prosecution or defense of any suit without prepayment of fees or security “by a person 24 who submits an affidavit stating the person is “unable to pay such fees or give security 25 therefor.” This affidavit is to include, among other things, a statement of all assets the 26 person possesses. Id. The IFP statute does not itself define what constitutes insufficient 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 1 assets. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). In Escobedo, 2 the Ninth Circuit stated that an affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient 3 where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay court costs and still afford the necessities of 4 life. Id. “One need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the in forma pauperis 5 statute.” Id. Nonetheless, a party seeking IFP status must allege poverty “with some 6 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. According to the United States Department 7 of Health and Human Services, the current poverty guideline for a household of one (not 8 residing in Alaska or Hawaii) is $15,060.00. See U.S. Dpt. Health & Human Service 9 (available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines). 10 Here, Plaintiff’s IFP application does make the financial showing required by 11 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See ECF No. 17. However, Plaintiff’s IFP application is not signed 12 personally by Plaintiff as required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); E.D. Cal. L. R. 131(b). The 13 Court will recommend Plaintiff’s IFP application be denied because the action is facially 14 frivolous and without merit because it is duplicative of an earlier pending action in this 15 district. “‘A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it 16 appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or without 17 merit.’” Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Tripati v. 18 First Nat. Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also McGee v. Dep’t of 19 Child Support Servs., 584 Fed. App’x. 638 (9th Cir. 2014) (“the district court did not 20 abuse its discretion by denying McGee's request to proceed IFP because it appears 21 from the face of the amended complaint that McGee's action is frivolous or without 22 merit”); Smart v. Heinze, 347 F.2d 114, 116 (9th Cir. 1965) (“It is the duty of the District 23 Court to examine any application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to determine 24 whether the proposed proceeding has merit and if it appears that the proceeding is 25 without merit, the court is bound to deny a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma 26 pauperis.”). Because it appears from the face of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint that 27 this action is frivolous and is without merit as discussed in more detail below, the Court 28 recommends denying Plaintiff’s IFP motion. 1 II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 2 Even if the Court were to grant Plaintiff’s IFP application, Plaintiff’s First Amended 3 Complaint warrants dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)’s required pre-answer 4 screening. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma 5 pauperis proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” 6 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a 7 defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 8 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000) (en banc). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an 9 arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In 10 reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual 11 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and 12 construes those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See id. at 326-27; 13 Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 14 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011). 15 Pleadings by self-represented litigants are liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 16 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction appropriate even post-Iqbal). 17 However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable 18 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 19 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does 20 not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); 21 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 22 To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege 23 enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 24 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows 25 the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 26 alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in 27 the complaint and an opportunity to amend unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not 28 be cured by amendment. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 1 80 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996). 2 III. THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT2 3 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) names the following fourteen (14) 4 Defendants: (1) California Highway Patrol Golden Gate Division; (2) City of Fairfield 5 Police Department; (3) City of Vallejo Police Department; (4) Gary R. Stanton, Executive 6 Director; (5) Solano County District Attorneys; (6) Solano County Superior Court Judge 7 D. Stashyn; (7) Solano County Superior Court Judge William Pendergast III; (8) Solano 8 County Superior Court Judge Bradley Nelson; (9) Karen Phillips, psychologist; (10) Daily 9 Republic Newspaper; (11) MHM Services of California; (12) City of Vacaville Police 10 Department; (13) Mr. Hale; and (14) Solano County Public Defenders and Alternate 11 Defense. FAC at 2-4 (ECF No. 32). Plaintiff alleges on November 5, 2011, Defendants 12 “mishandled a credible threat 911 calls” that resulted in “[w]illful neflect,” “dereliction of 13 duty,” and “the loss of life of an on duty executive officer in the performance of their 14 duties.” FAC at 7, 9. Plaintiff raises six (6) causes of action: (1) “Violation of Federal 15 Procedural Standards (FRCP 65);” (2) Irreparable Harm (FRCP 65);” (3) “Supremacy 16 Clause Violation (Article VI, Clause 2);” (4) “False Claims Regarding Compliance with 17 Federal Standards (31 U.S.C. § 3729);” (5) “Constitutional Civil rights Violations (First, 18 Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendments);” and (6) “National Security 19 Failures under NSEP Frameworks.” FAC at 11. For relief, Plaintiff is seeking “damages 20 totaling $[over $75,000]” and declaratory relief. Id. at 6, 12. 21 IV. DISCUSSION 22 A. Res Judicata 23 The doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment on the merits bars 24 further claims by parties or their privies based on the same cause of action.” Tahoe- 25 Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Plan. Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir.
26 2 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is not signed personally by Plaintiff as required. 27 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); E.D. Cal. L. R. 131(b). Because it appears from the face of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint that this action is frivolous, the Court will proceed to 28 address the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint warranting dismissal. 1 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The doctrine of res judicata, also 2 known as claim preclusion, is applicable when there is (1) an identity of claims; (2) a final 3 judgment on the merits; and (3) identity or privity between parties. Owens v. Kaiser 4 Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 2001). When the doctrine applies, it 5 “‘bar(s) all grounds for recovery which could have been asserted, whether they were or 6 not…” Costantini v. Trans World Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 1982) (quoting 7 Ross v. IBEW, 634 F.2d 453, 457 (9th Cir. 1980)). Thus, all potential claims that could 8 “’arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts’” are barred from going forward. 9 See id. at 1202 (quoting Harris v. Jacobs, 621 F.2d 341, 343 (9th Cir. 1980)). A court 10 may sua sponte dismiss an action based on the doctrine of res judicata, even though the 11 doctrine is normally raised as an affirmative defense. Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 12 412 (2000). 13 On May 10, 2022, Plaintiff initiated an action in this district court alleging various 14 claims in his Seventeenth Amended Complaint. See Warfield v. Solano County Public 15 Defenders Offices, et al., 2:22-cv-00782-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2023) (“Warfield 16 I”), 17th Am. Compl. (ECF No. 30). In Warfield I, Plaintiff alleged that on November 5, 17 2011, he made a 911 call to the Fairfield Police Department that was mishandled and 18 resulted in the shooting and killing of a Vallejo police officer. Warfield I, 17th Am. Compl. 19 at 8-9, 11. In Warfield I, Plaintiff names six of the fourteen Defendants in this action: 20 Solano County Public Defenders; Karen Phillips, Psychologist; Solano County District 21 Attorneys; Solano County Superior Court Judge Bradley Nelson; Solano County 22 Superior Court Judge William Pendergast III; and Daily Republic Newspaper. Compare 23 FAC at 2-4, with Warfield I, 17th Am. Compl. at 1, 5-6. The instant case and Warfield I 24 plead similar factual allegations relating to a 911 call Plaintiff made on November 5, 25 2011 concerning the shooting and killing of a police officer. Compare FAC at 7, 9, with 26 Warfield I, 17th Am. Compl. at 8-9, 11. 27 Here, in both actions, many of the parties named are identical. Compare FAC, 28 with Warfield I, 17th Am. Compl. Although there is a difference in some of the claims 1 alleged in the two actions, the two actions arise out of the same “transactional nucleus of 2 facts” and make almost identical factual allegations relating to the crux of the issue—the 3 911 call Plaintiff made on November 5, 2011. See Constantini, 681 F.2d at 1201-02. 4 Moreover, the judgment entered in Warfield I clearly constitutes a final judgment on the 5 merits. In Warfield I, on January 26, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. 6 Peterson issued Findings and Recommendations recommending the action be 7 dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rules 8 of Civil Procedure 8(a). See Warfield I, 2:22-cv-00782-TLN-JDP, ECF No. 31. On 9 February 16, 2023, District Judge Troy L. Nunley adopted the January 26, 2023 Findings 10 and Recommendations in full and dismissed the action without leave to amend. See 11 Warfield I, 2:22-cv-00782-TLN-JDP, ECF No. 37. Judgment was entered on February 12 16, 2023. See Warfield I, 2:22-cv-00782-TLN-JDP, ECF No. 38. Because Warfield I was 13 dismissed with prejudice, the dismissal was an adjudication on the merits for purposes of 14 res judicata. See Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981) (“A 15 complaint which fails to comply with rules 8(a) and 8(e) may be dismissed with prejudice 16 pursuant to rule 41(b)”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to 17 comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or 18 any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this 19 subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule—except one for lack of jurisdiction, 20 improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19 —operates as an adjudication on 21 the merits”). Accordingly, the Court recommends this action also be dismissed without 22 leave to amend based on the doctrine of res judicata. 23 B. Leave to Amend 24 In considering whether leave to amend should be granted, the Court finds that the 25 doctrine of res judicata bars this action from going forward. See Costantini, 681 F.2d at 26 1202. The First Amended Complaint should therefore be dismissed without leave to 27 amend. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31; Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105-06 28 (9th Cir. 1995). 1 || V. CONCLUSION 2 Based upon the findings above, it is RECOMMENDED that: 3 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 17) be DENIED; 4 2. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 32) be DISMISSED without 5 leave to amend; and 6 3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to CLOSE this case. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 8 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 9 | 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 10 | written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should 11 | be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any 12 | reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14 13 | days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time 14 | may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 15 | 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 | Dated: April 28, 2025 C i s 18 CHI SOO KIM 49 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 || 4, wart2886.24 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28