Lumentut v. Hartley

Filing 34

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 12/12/14 ORDERING that Petitioners December 8, 2014 32 request for an order that his case be removed from publication is denied. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MELKIOR LUMENTUT,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:12-cv-2463 MCE GGH P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

JAMES HARTLEY,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed in part and denied in

18

part on October 14, 2014 and judgment was entered at that time. Petitioner has now filed a

19

request that all of his case information be removed from public access due to the sensitive nature

20

of his case, and his fear that his safety is in danger, based on his recent discovery that this

21

information is available in his prison’s law library.

22

An appeal is pending with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in regard to the

23

aforementioned judgment. “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional

24

significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its

25

control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer

26

Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S. Ct. 400, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982). Its purpose is to avoid

27

both the inefficiency and confusion of two courts considering the same issues at the same time.

28

Masalosalo by Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 955, 956 (9th Cir. 1983). This rule of
1

1

exclusive appellate jurisdiction is not absolute, however. Id. The district court is permitted to

2

consider ancillary matters during the pendency of an appeal, Perry v. City of San Francisco, 2011

3

WL 2419868 *1 (9th Cir. Apr. 27, 2011), as long as it does not “adjudicate anew the merits of

4

the case” or “materially alter the status of the case on appeal.” Natural Res. Def. Council Inc. v.

5

Sw. Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001).

6

Petitioner’s request is an ancillary matter which will not impact his appeal, and therefore

7

this court has jurisdiction to decide it. Nevertheless, the information which petitioner seeks to

8

keep private has already been in the public domain for years before his case was filed in this

9

court. For example, petitioner’s state court case has been accessible on Westlaw since sometime

10

after December 8, 2010, when his appeal was decided by the California Court of Appeals. See

11

People v. Lumentut, 2010 WL 4970868 (2010). A Google search of petitioner’s name indicates

12

that other search websites have published information about his case. See www.gpo.gov;

13

www.leagle.com. These same websites regularly publish decided cases as soon as rulings have

14

been issued. Since this information has been released to third parties, the court has no authority

15

to order those third parties to remove information about his case from their websites.

16
17
18

Petitioner is advised that he might try contacting the various legal websites directly, and
request that his case be removed from their database.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Petitioner’s December 8, 2014 (ECF No.

19

32) request for an order that his case be removed from publication is denied.

20

Dated: December 12, 2014

21

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

22

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25

GGH:076/lume2463.seal

26
27
28
2