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)
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?