Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 BRODERICK WARFIELD, No. 2:26–cv–00065–DJC–CKD (PS)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER

13 v.

(ECF No. 7)

14 SOLANO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

et al.,

15

Defendant.

16

17

18 Plaintiff Broderick Warfield proceeds without counsel and seeks relief for alleged

19 violations of his civil rights based on the handling of submitted filings in a prior state action. The

20 matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

21 Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on April 20, 2026, while the

22 undersigned’s April 13, 2026 findings and recommendations granting Plaintiff’s application to

23 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2) and recommending Plaintiff’s original Complaint

24 be dismissed with leave to amend (ECF No. 4.) were pending before the District Court. The

25 District Court adopted the undersigned’s findings and recommendations on May 4, 2026, and

26 granted Plaintiff 30 days from the date of service of the District Court’s order to file an amended

27 complaint. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on May 8, 2026.

28 (ECF No. 7.) The Court recognizes Plaintiff’s SAC as the operative complaint. See Fed. R. Civ.

1 P. 15(a)(2) (“The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.”)

2 SCREENING REQUIREMENT

3 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis

4 proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a

5 claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is

6 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27

7 (2000). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the factual

8 allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly baseless or fanciful, and construes

9 those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von

10 Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert.

11 denied, 564 U.S. 1037 (2011).

12 PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

13 The SAC is sparsely detailed and confusing to read. Plaintiff is reminded that the Court

14 may not rely on factual allegations from a prior filing when amending his Complaint. See L.R.

15 230.

16 Plaintiff alleges that on June 2, 2022, the National Personnel Records Center (“NPRC”)

17 sent Plaintiff a message in response to an inquiry for medical and “federal military records,”

18 which read: “We have had no other requests for your records other than from you.” (ECF No. 7 at

19 ¶ 1.) Plaintiff alleges this message was signed by Defendant Debbie Planty, who Plaintiff alleges

20 is a technician at NRPC and is sued in her individual capacity. Id.

21 Plaintiff alleges that this exchange caused him “procedural uncertainty… from the

22 handling, transmission, and administrative treatment of these federal records.” Id. at ¶ 3. Plaintiff

23 further alleges that the handling of his requested records “resulted in procedural injury and

24 constitutional deprivation,” which included an “interference with the right to petition, intrusion

25 upon privacy interests, deprivation of procedural fairness, and inconsistent treatment of protected

26 federal materials.” Id. at ¶ 4.

27 The SAC alleges violations against Defendant Planty, which include Plaintiff’s First

28 Amendment right to petition, his Fourth Amendment rights to privacy and bodily integrity, his

1 Fifth Amendment Due Process rights, Eighth Amendment rights regarding conditions and

2 treatment implications, and his Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights.

3 Id. at 4.

4 DISCUSSION

5 The Court finds that the SAC once again fails to state a claim. First, Plaintiff’s allegations

6 against Defendant Planty may be barred by qualified immunity. Second, even if Plaintiff named a

7 defendant not immune from suit, Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted

8 for each of his causes of action. “[N]aked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic

9 recitation of the elements of a cause of action” do not suffice to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp.

10 v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). Because Plaintiff is being granted an opportunity to

11 amend, the Court sets forth the following relevant legal standards.

12 Qualified Immunity

13 “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions [are entitled to] a qualified

14 immunity, shielding them from civil damages liability as long as their actions could reasonably

15 have been thought consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated.” Anderson v.

16 Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638 (1987).

17 Liability in a personal-capacity suit can be demonstrated by showing that the official

18 caused the alleged constitutional injury. See id. at 166. “A person ‘subjects’ another to the

19 deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act,

20 participates in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to

21 do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743

22 (9th Cir. 1978).

23 The SAC does not make any individual allegations against Defendant Planty. It is not

24 clear based on the allegations pled in the SAC how Defendant Planty allegedly violated plaintiff’s

25 constitutional rights. The Court finds Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Defendant Planty and

26 the Court dismisses her from this action.

27 First Amendment

28 The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of

1 the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” U.S. Const. amend. I. “The

2 protections afforded by the Petition Clause have been limited by the Supreme Court to situations

3 where an individual’s associational or speech rights are also implicated.” WMX Technologies v.

4 Miller, 197 F.3d 367, 372 (9th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). Plaintiff alleges that the “procedural

5 uncertainty… burdened Plaintiff’s ability to petition the government for redress while

6 maintaining the confidentiality of protected federal records.” (ECF No. 7 at 4.) Critically, this

7 allegation does not describe how Plaintiff’s right to petition was burdened and resembles mere

8 “labels and conclusions,” that do not suffice to state a claim. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557.

9 Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim.

10 Fourth Amendment

11 Plaintiff fails to state a Fourth Amendment claim for violation of bodily integrity. To state

12 a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show (1) the defendant committed the alleged

13 conduct while acting under color of state law; and (2) the plaintiff was deprived of a

14 constitutional right as a result of the defendant’s conduct. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901

15 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). The Fourth Amendment “generally proscribes ‘unreasonable

16 intrusions on one’s bodily integrity,’ and other harassing and abusive behavior that rises to the

17 level of ‘unreasonable seizure’…” Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 878-879 (9th Cir. 2001). The

18 SAC only alleges “the handling of federal medical and military records implicated Plaintiff’s

19 reasonable expectation of privacy and contributed to constitutional injury.” (ECF No. 7 at 4.)

20 Fifth Amendment

21 Plaintiff fails to state a procedural due process claim under the Fifth Amendment. To

22 prevail under a procedural due process claim, Plaintiff must demonstrate he was denied a

23 specified liberty or property interest protected under the due-process clause and that he was

24 deprived of that interest without the constitutionally required procedures. Swarthout v. Cooke,

25 562 U.S. 216, 219, (2011). “The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies only to

26 actions of the federal government, and not to state actors.” McCloud v. Bird-Hunt, 2020 WL

27 71133, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Jan 6, 2020). The SAC alleges “the handling of federal records by a

28 federal employee created procedural uncertainty affecting interests protected by the Fifth

1 Amendment.” (ECF No. 7 at 4.) This conclusory allegation does not meet the pleading standards

2 outlined above, and the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claim.

3 Eighth Amendment

4 Plaintiff fails to allege a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. “The treatment a

5 prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined is subject to scrutiny

6 under the Eighth Amendment.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (quoting Helling v.

7 McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993)). The SAC alleges “the handling of records containing

8 medical information relating to treatment contributed to or reflected conditions implicating Eighth

9 Amendment protections.” (ECF No. 7 at 4.) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim fails for the

10 same reason as his Fifth Amendment claim: it contains only labels and conclusions without

11 further factual elaboration. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. Therefore, the Court dismisses

12 Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment cause of action.

13 Fourteenth Amendment

14 Plaintiff fails to state a Due Process or Equal Protection claim under the Fourteenth

15 Amendment. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show (1) the defendant

16 committed the alleged conduct while acting under color of state law; and (2) the plaintiff was

17 deprived of a constitutional right as a result of the defendant’s conduct. Balistreri, 901 F.2d at

18 699.

19 To state a procedural due process claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1)

20 a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, and (2) a denial of

21 adequate procedural protections. Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1085 (9th Cir. 2003); see Bd.

22 of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-70 (1972). Liberty or property interests may arise from the

23 United States Constitution or from state law. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223-27

24 (1976); Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 1091 (9th Cir. 2008) (a governing state statute that

25 compels a result upon compliance with certain criteria, none of which involve the exercise of

26 discretion by the reviewing body, creates a constitutionally protected property interest). Where a

27 constitutionally protected liberty or property interest is at stake, determination of what process is

28 due is a fact-specific inquiry. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).

1 To state a claim for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a

2 plaintiff must generally show the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate

3 against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class. See Thornton v. City of St.

4 Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166 (9th Cir. 2005). A plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating

5 “intentional unlawful discrimination or… facts that are at least susceptible of an inference of

6 discriminatory intent.” Monteiro v. Tempe Union High Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir.

7 1998).

8 The SAC only alleges “inconsistent or unclear treatment of protected federal records

9 deprived Plaintiff of procedural due process and equal protection interests.” (ECF No. 7 at 4.)

10 Plaintiff’s claim fails because it does not provide any factual elaboration as to how Plaintiff’s due

11 process and equal protection interests were violated. Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s

12 Fourteenth Amendment claims.

13 Leave to Amend

14 The FAC must be dismissed, but Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended

15 complaint. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Unless it is absolutely

16 clear that no amendment can cure the defect . . . a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the

17 complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.”). An

18 amended complaint should be titled “Third Amended Complaint.” Local Rule 220 requires that

19 an amended complaint be complete by itself without reference to any prior pleading.

20 CONCLUSION

21 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

22 1. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 7) is DISMISSED with leave to amend;

23 /////

24 /////

25 /////

26 /////

27 /////

28 /////

1 2. Plaintiff granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file a Third

2 Amended Complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil

3 Procedure and Local Rules of Practice; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance

4 with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

5 | Dated: August 19, 2026 Card ft 4 by ae

7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8

9 || 7.warf.26cev65.sem2

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28