Broderick Warfield v. Solano County Superior Court, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Broderick Warfield’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior order dismissing his action with prejudice. The court held that Warfield had not shown manifest error, newly discovered evidence, manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The court also denied his request for a protective order as unclear and denied the remaining pending motions as moot.

Holdings

1. Reconsideration was properly denied because Warfield did not establish a manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered evidence, manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law.
2. The request for a protective order was denied because it was unclear what relief Warfield sought, no protective order had been entered in the case, and the court declined to reopen the action.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Warfield established a valid ground under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) for altering or amending the judgment dismissing his action with prejudice.
2. Whether Warfield was entitled to a protective order when his request was unclear and no protective order had been entered in the case.

Disposition

other