(PC) Warfield v. Tibbet

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRODERICK JAMES WARFIELD, No. 2:23-cv-01546 KJM DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER WALT TIBBET, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 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 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. F&Rs, ECF No. 15. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Obj., ECF No. 18. Plaintiff also subsequently filed a second motion for a temporary restraining order, see Second TRO, ECF No. 38, and motions to seal and redact exhibits in support of this motion, see First Mot. to Seal, ECF No. 39; Second Mot. to Seal, ECF No. 41; Mot. to Redact, ECF No. 45.

27 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 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 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 allow plaintiff to “file complaints against defendants with the appropriate state agencies.” Second TRO at 2. However, “[a] plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 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 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 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 moot. See First Mot. to Seal; Mot. to Redact. Plaintiff alleges the exhibits at issue “contain sensitive and confidential information that, if made public, would cause irreparable harm to [p]laintiff’s personal and professional reputation, as well as his safety and security.” First Mot. at 2. However, as described above, the court adopts the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and dismisses plaintiff’s claims without leave to amend. An examination of the documents plaintiff seeks to seal and redact does not change this conclusion. The court further finds the documents filed and currently sealed under a temporary restriction at ECF No. 41 do not change the decision to dismiss plaintiff’s claims without leave to amend. However, given the documents have already been filed on the public docket and were placed under a temporary restriction, these documents shall remain sealed until further court order. See Second Mot. to Seal.

25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 18, 2023, ECF No. 15, are 27 adopted in full; ///// 1 2. Plaintiff's third amended complaint, ECF No. 12, is dismissed without leave to 2 amend; 3 3. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is denied as moot; 4 4. Plaintiffs 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. Plaintiffs 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; 1] 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.

19 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE