Bratset v. Davis Joint Unified School District et al

Filing 70

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 8/11/17, ORDERING that Plaintiff's 68 request to file documents under seal is GRANTED. Plaintiff's 68 request for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAURA BRATSET, et al., 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:16-cv-0035 GEB DB PS Plaintiffs, v. ORDER DAVIS JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff, Laura Bratset, is proceeding pro se in this action. Therefore, the matter was 19 referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 On July 20, 2017, plaintiff filed a request to seal documents and a request for the appointment of 21 counsel. (ECF No. 68.) 22 In evaluating requests to seal, the court starts “‘with a strong presumption in favor of 23 access to court records.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th 24 Cir. 2016) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 25 2003)). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although 26 independent – indeed, particularly because they are independent – to have a measure of 27 accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Id. 28 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). A request to seal material 1 1 must normally meet the high threshold of showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy. Id. 2 (citing Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). 3 However, where the material is, at most, “tangentially related to the merits of a case,” the request 4 to seal may be granted on a showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097-1101. 5 Here, the material at issue is at most tangentially related to the merits of this case, as the 6 documents plaintiff seeks to have filed under seal concern plaintiff’s request for the appointment 7 of counsel. Moreover, the undersigned finds good cause to file the documents under seal as the 8 documents concern plaintiff’s sensitive financial information. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request to 9 file documents under seal will be granted. However, with respect to plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel, plaintiff is 10 11 informed that federal district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent 12 plaintiffs in civil cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The 13 court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel under the federal in forma pauperis statute, 14 but only under exceptional circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 15 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 16 The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s likelihood of 17 success on the merits and the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his or her claims. See Wilborn v. 18 Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 19 1983). Here, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied and plaintiff has paid 20 21 the applicable filing fee. (ECF No. 3.) Moreover, at this stage of the proceedings, the 22 undersigned finds that plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and ability to articulate her 23 claims does not satisfy the test for exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for 24 the appointment of counsel will be denied. 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 2 1 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff’s July 20, 2017 request to file documents under seal (ECF No. 68) is granted; 3 and 2. Plaintiff’s July 20, 2017 request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 68) is 4 5 denied. 6 Dated: August 11, 2017 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 DLB:6 DB/orders/orders.pro se/bratset0035.seal.aoc.ord 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?