Hurlbut v. Liggett et al

Filing 78

ORDER denying 75 Motion Motion to Seal Notice of Change of Address. Signed by Honorable Mark E. Ford on August 16, 2019. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
DANIEL BRYCE HURLBUT
v.

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 6:18-CV-06016

DR. CHARLES LIGGETT, et. al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal
his Address from Public View. (ECF No. 75).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that every “pleading, written motion, and
other paper must be signed . . .[and] must state the signer’s address, e-mail address, and telephone
number.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Rule 5.2 provides for privacy protection of personal identifying
information, such as social security numbers, but does not provide such protection for the address
of a party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). Plaintiff now advises the Court of his new address after being
paroled from the Arkansas Department of Correction and asks that his new address be restricted
from public view and available only to the Court, Clerk of Court, and counsel of record. (Id. at
1.). Plaintiff provides no grounds for this request, nor does he cite any legal authority in support
of the request.
The Court “has supervisory control over its records.” Flynt v. Lombardi, 885 F.3d 508,
511 (8th Cir. 2018). “Whether or not to seal a court file is a decision ‘best left to the sound
discretion of the trial court.’” Duckworth v. St. Louis Metro. Police Dep't, 654 F. App’x 249, 250
(8th Cir. 2016) (unpublished per curiam) (quoting United States v. Webbe, 791 F.2d 103, 106 (8th
Cir. 1986)). In the Eighth Circuit, the common-law presumption provides that the public has a
1

right of access to judicial records in order to ensure “the public's confidence in, and the
accountability of, the judiciary.” Flynt, 885 F.3d at 511. The Eighth Circuit has further recognized
“a modern trend in federal cases to treat pleadings in civil litigation as ‘presumptively public.’”
Steele v. City of Burlington, Iowa, 334 F. Supp. 972, 976-77 (S.D. Iowa Aug. 14, 2018) (citing
IDT Corp. v. eBay, 709 F.3d 1220, 1222 (8th Cir. 2013)). The presumption of public access to
court documents may be overcome only “if the party seeking to keep the records under seal
provides compelling reasons for doing so.” Flynt, 885 F.3d at 511 (citing In re Neal, 461 F.3d
1048, 1053 (8th Cir. 2006)).
Here, Plaintiff provides no reasons, compelling or otherwise, in support of his request.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal his Address from Public View (ECF No. 75) is DENIED.
Plaintiff is again REMINDED that he is required to follow the requirements of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s continuous filing of motions, most of which are frivolous or
duplicitous, is a waste of the Court’s time and resources, prejudicial to Defendants, and impedes
the resolution of this matter. Plaintiff is WARNED that further attempts to file duplicitous or
frivolous pleadings could result in sanctions being imposed against him, including dismissal of his
case.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of August 2019.
/s/

Mark E. Ford

HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2