Manago v. Davey et al

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 41 Motion to Seal without prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 07/13/16. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STEWART MANAGO,

12

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO SEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

14

No. 1:16-cv-00399 LJO DLB PC

DAVEY, et al.,

(Document 41)

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Stewart Manago (“Plaintiff”), a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

17
18

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on March 24, 2016. The action is proceeding on

19

Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Davey, Sexton, Vander Poel,

20

Maxfield, Valdez, Acevedo and Razo. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants retained him

21

in the SHU because of his grievances. The Court directed the United States Marshal to serve

22

Defendants on June 3, 2016. There is no indication that any Defendants have been served at this

23

time.

24
25

On July 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a “protective order not to disclose” his new
address to the public. The Court construes this as a motion to seal.

26

Courts have long recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and

27

documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Comm’ns, Inc., 435 U.S.

28

589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one
1

1

‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting

2

point.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.

3

2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.2003)). In

4

order to overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must

5

articulate justifications for sealing that outweigh the historical right of access and the public

6

policies favoring disclosure. See id. at 1178-79.

7

Although Plaintiff requests that his address be protected from public view, he does not

8

explain the reasons behind his request. Without such information, the Court cannot rule on his

9

motion. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling with the

10

required information.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

July 13, 2016

13

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2