Gamez v. Gonzalez, et al.

Filing 130

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/8/2013 denying 127 Motion to seal documents and directing Clerk to return documents to plaintiff. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SERGIO ALEJANDRO GAMEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:08-cv-01113-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS
(Doc. 127.)

v.
F. GONZALEZ, et al.,

15

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO RETURN
DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF

Defendants.
/

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Sergio Alejandro Gamez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

19

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on August 1, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This

20

action now proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint filed on April 1, 2009. (Doc. 13.)

21

On September 1, 2011, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and

22

entered judgment in favor of Defendants, closing this action. (Doc. 109, 110.) On September 16,

23

2011, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 111.) On July 25, 2012, the Ninth

24

Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part the district court’s decision. (Doc.

25

116.) On July 25, 2012, the case was reopened at the district court.

26

This action now proceeds against defendants F. Gonzalez (Warden, CCI), Captain S. Wright,

27

N. Grannis (Chief of Inmate Appeals), K. Berkeler (Senior Special Agent), K. J. Allen (Appeals

28

Examiner), M. Carrasco (Associate Warden, CCI), Lieutenant J. Gentry, and K. Sampson (Appeals
1

1

Coordinator), on Plaintiff’s due process claims concerning his 2010 re-validation as a gang

2

associate, and Plaintiff’s retaliation claims associated with the 2010 re-validation. (Doc. 116.)

3

On December 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to seal documents. (Doc. 127.) On

4

December 31, 2012, Defendants filed an opposition. (Doc. 129.)

5

II.

MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS

6

Most courts recognize a presumption of public access to court records based on common law

7

and First Amendment grounds. The public therefore normally has the right to inspect and copy

8

documents filed with the court. See Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc.,435 U.S. 589, 597-98 (1978);

9

Globe Newspaper v. Superior Court for Norfolk County, 457 U.S. 596, 603 (1982); Phillips ex rel.

10

Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002). However, public

11

access may be denied where the court determines that court-filed documents may be used for

12

improper purposes. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598; Hagestad v. Tragesser,49 F.3d 1430, 1433-1434 (9th

13

Cir. 1995). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d), a court “may order that a filing be

14

made under seal without redaction,” and the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the decision to

15

seal documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised

16

in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case,” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599.

17

Courts should consider “the interests advanced by the parties in light of the public interest and the

18

duty of the courts.” Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434 (quoting Nixon,435 U.S. at 602).

19

"Two standards generally govern motions to seal documents[.]" Pintos v. Pac. Creditors

20

Ass'n., 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir 2010). Judicial records attached to a dispositive motion are

21

treated differently from records attached to non-dispositive motions. "'[C]ompelling reasons' must

22

be shown to seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion." Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179

23

(quoting Foltz v. State Farm mutual Auto. Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir.

24

2003)). "[A] 'particularized showing,' Foltz 331 F.3d at 1138, under the 'good cause standard of

25

Rule 26(c) will 'suffice[] to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material attached to

26

non-dispositive motions.'" Kamakana at 1180. “‘In turn, the court must conscientiously balance the

27

competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.’”

28

Id. at 1179. “In general, ‘compelling reasons' sufficient to ... justify sealing court records exist when
2

1

such ‘court files might ... become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to

2

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.”

3

Id. (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a

4

litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more,

5

compel the court to seal its records.” Id. .

6

Plaintiff seeks to seal his intended motion for temporary injunction barring Defendants from

7

classifying Plaintiff as an active associate of a prison gang pending resolution of this case, and its

8

attachments, to be considered in camera, on the grounds that disclosure of the motion and

9

attachments to Defendants will cause Plaintiff to be subjected to further retaliation by Defendants.

10

Plaintiff argues that further retaliation will cause him to be disqualified for parole consideration in

11

his upcoming Tenth Parole Hearing on February 6, 2013.

12

In opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motion to seal fails to show compelling

13

reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the presumption of access to judicial

14

records, which favors disclosure. Defendants argue that Plaintiff is seeking to have the Court

15

micromanage CDCR’s prison facility and personnel by getting involved with its day-to-day

16

operations, which is contrary to the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court. Defendants also argue that

17

Plaintiff has shown no proof that CDCR, the Parole Board, and/or any of its personnel at CCI have

18

or will act improperly in any of its actions. Finally, Defendants argue that if the Court seals

19

Plaintiff’s motion for temporary injunction, Defendants and the Court will be prevented from

20

determining whether the motion meets the requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.

21

III.

DISCUSSION

22

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion for temporary injunction in camera. The

23

documents Plaintiff seeks to file under seal contain Plaintiff’s arguments, and documents in support

24

of his arguments, that he should not be classified as an active associate of a prison gang. Plaintiff

25

has not provided a compelling reason to seal the motion and supporting documents. Plaintiff's

26

argument that disclosure of the documents will cause Defendants to disqualify him for parole without

27

cause is speculative, and the fact that disclosure of the motion may cause retaliation against Plaintiff

28

will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records. Plaintiff has not argued that disclosure
3

1

of any particular document will jeopardize the safety or privacy of particular individuals, or that he

2

is unable to file documents with any confidential information redacted.

3

Permitting the motion to be filed under seal would deprive the public of the information it

4

is entitled to, namely the basis for this Court’s decision on the motion for temporary injunction. The

5

Court shall not decide Plaintiff’s motion based upon secret evidence. Equally unacceptable, Plaintiff

6

seeks to withhold the motion from Defendants, which would preclude Defendants from defending

7

against the issuance of a temporary injunction by withholding access to the evidence that supposedly

8

justifies its issuance. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to seal shall be denied, and the documents

9

submitted for the Court’s review shall be returned to Plaintiff.

10

IV.

CONCLUSION

11

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1.

Plaintiff’s request to seal documents is DENIED; and

13

2.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to return to Plaintiff the motion for temporary

14

injunction and supporting documents submitted to the Court on December 12, 2012.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

January 8, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4