Roseberry v. Ryan et al

Filing 40

ORDER granting Respondent's 33 Motion for Reconsideration. FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Court's 31 order granting Roseberry's motion to file his amended habeas petition under seal. The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal Roseberry's 32 amended petition. FURTHER ORDERED denying Roseberry's 35 motion to seal his response to Respondents' motion for reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge Neil V Wake on 9/15/2016. (ATD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Homer Ray Roseberry,
Petitioner,

10
11

v.

12

No. CV-15-1507-PHX-NVW
ORDER

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

DEATH PENALTY CASE

Respondents.

14
15

Before the Court is Respondents’ motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order

16

granting Roseberry’s request to file his amended habeas petition under seal. (Doc. 33.)

17

Also before the Court is Roseberry’s motion to seal his response to the motion for

18

reconsideration. (Doc. 35.)

19

A court has inherent power to seal documents in appropriate circumstances.

20

United States v. Mann, 829 F.2d 849, 853 (9th Cir. 1987). There is a strong presumption

21

in favor of access to court records, but the right of access is not absolute and may be

22

overridden given sufficiently compelling reasons. Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins.

23

Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003).

24

Roseberry contends that his petition should be sealed because it contains

25

references to materials that remain sealed in state court. (Doc. 29.) Respondents argue

26

that Roseberry’s petition merely cites or refers to the sealed materials and therefore does

27

not violate the state court’s order. (Doc. 37 at 2.) They also assert that the references to

28

sealed documents occur in only four claims, which, they suggest in the alternative, could
remain sealed if the Court does not unseal the entire petition. (Doc. 33 at 2.) Roseberry

1

counters that the references to sealed documents are incorporated throughout the entire

2

petition. (Doc. 36 at 5–7.)

3

The Court finds that Roseberry has not shown sufficiently compelling reasons to

4

seal either his habeas petition or his response to the motion for reconsideration.

5

Roseberry does not cite any harm that would result from unsealing the petition. In fact, he

6

“does not desire the concealing of the documents at issue” and moved twice in state

7

court, unsuccessfully, for the documents to be unsealed. (Doc. 36 at 9.)

8

In addition, as Respondents argues, it is not clear that Roseberry’s filings in this

9

Court violate the state court’s order sealing the documents. Roseberry’s citations to the

10

sealed material in his habeas petition do not reveal the contents of the documents. (See

11

Doc. 32 at 25, 67–68, 69, 78, 151, 183.) References to the material in Roseberry’s

12

response outline but do not detail the contents of the sealed documents or reveal

13

confidential or privileged matters. (Doc. 36 at 3–6.)

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Accordingly, because Roseberry has not met his burden of showing compelling
reasons for his sealing requests,
IT IS ORDERED granting Respondents’ motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 33.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Court’s order granting Roseberry’s
motion to file his amended habeas petition under seal. (Doc. 31.) The Clerk of Court is
directed to unseal Roseberry’s amended petition. (Doc. 32.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Roseberry’s motion to seal his response
to Respondents’ motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 35.)
Dated this 15th day of September, 2016.

23
24
25

Neil V. Wake
Senior United States District
Judge

26
27
28

-2-