(PS) Warfield v. Solano County Superior Court
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRODERICK WARFIELD, No. 2:25-cv-00557-TLN-SCR Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION
SOLANO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., 15 Defendants.
17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which is accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for leave to proceed 19 in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and has submitted the affidavit required by that statute. See 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) will therefore be granted. 21 In the less than three months this action has been pending, Plaintiff has also filed a first 22 amended complaint (FAC) (ECF No. 13) and thirteen other motions, many of them duplicative. 23 For the reasons provided below, the Court finds Plaintiff’s FAC is legally deficient and 24 recommends that it be dismissed without leave to amend. The Court also denies the thirteen 25 pending motions. 26 //// 27 //// 28 I. SCREENING …