(PS) Warfield v. Ax9 Security Services

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BRODERICK WARFIELD,
Plaintiff,
v.
AX9 SECURITY SERVICES,
Defendant.
No. 2:26-cv-02160-DJC-SCR
ORDER
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, and accordingly the matter was referred to the
undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On September 3, 2026, the Court issued Findings
and Recommendations (“F&R”) (ECF No. 13) recommending that this action be dismissed. The
Court recommended dismissal because Plaintiff had failed to file a renewed motion to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) or pay the filing fee, and failed to comply with the Court’s orders. After
the F&R was issued, Plaintiff filed timely objections, a financial statement, a renewed motion to
proceed IFP, and an amended complaint. ECF Nos. 14-17.
Although the renewed motion to proceed IFP and amended complaint were not timely
filed pursuant to the Court’s prior orders, the Court has considered them. The Court finds that
Plaintiff’s recent submissions demonstrate that he should be allowed to proceed IFP.
Accordingly, the Court will vacate the F&R, grant Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, and will issue a
Case 2:26-cv-02160-DJC-SCR Document 20 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
subsequent order screening the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (ECF No. 17) pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915.
Plaintiff is cautioned that further failure to comply with Court orders or to meet deadlines
may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff has also recently filed a motion to seal (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff seeks to
seal a document that he filed at ECF No. 18, because it “may contain employer identifiers,
employer tracking information, group numbers … and other non-public information.” Plaintiff
appears to suggest that he failed to properly redact the document, and seeks to be granted leave to
submit a redacted version, although the proposed redacted version is not attached. The Court will
grant the motion to seal. Plaintiff has previously filed several motions to seal in this matter and
has been cautioned that such prior filings were unnecessary and that he must comply with Local
Rule 141 in filing any such motion. See ECF No. 10 at 2-3 & 8. The Court will grant this
request, and Plaintiff need not submit a redacted version. However, Plaintiff shall refrain from
submitting any other exhibits or motions to seal until after the Court has issued an order screening
the FAC.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	The Findings and Recommendations entered on September 3, 2026 (ECF No. 13) are
VACATED.
2. 	Plaintiff’s renewed motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED.
3. 	Plaintiff’s motion to seal (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to SEAL the
docket entry at ECF No. 18.
4. 	The Court will screen the First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and
issue a screening order in due course.
////
////
////
////
////
Case 2:26-cv-02160-DJC-SCR Document 20 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
5. 	Plaintiff is cautioned that future failure to comply with orders of the Court, including
deadlines set therein, may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a
recommendation that the action be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); LR 110.
DATED: October 13, 2026
Case 2:26-cv-02160-DJC-SCR Document 20 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 3