Washington v. Young, et al.

Filing 53

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 05/31/18 GRANTING 51 Motion to Seal. The Clerk of the Court shall seal the portion of plaintiffs complaint containing Grissoms declaration ( 1 at 10). An order to show cause hearing is set befo re the undersigned on August 30, 2018, at 10:00 a.m in Courtroom 27. Plaintiff, Grissom, and defense counsel shall make a personal appearance for the hearing on August 30, 2018. The parties may submit supplemental briefing on the order to show caus e hearing. If plaintiff chooses to file a supplemental brief, it shall be due no later than twenty-eight days before the show cause hearing. If defendants choose to file a supplemental brief, it shall be due no later than fourteen days before the show cause hearing. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

CHRISTOPHER NATHANIEL
WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff,

13

ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
v.

14
15

No. 2:16-cv-1341 JAM DB P

YOUNG, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

19

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights.

20

Presently before the court is defendants’ motion for sanctions and request to seal. (ECF No. 41.)

21
22

I.

Background

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that while he was an inmate at High Desert State Prison

23

defendants directed another inmate to physically assault him in violation of the Eighth

24

Amendment. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff attached as Exhibit B to his complaint a document

25

purportedly written by inmate Howard Grissom stating Grissom was directed by defendant

26

correctional officers to assault plaintiff and was rewarded for carrying out the assault. (ECF No.

27

1 at 10.) After defendants were served, they responded by filing a motion for terminating

28

sanctions and a request to seal. (ECF No. 41.) They allege plaintiff forged the declaration of

1

Grissom attached to the complaint in an effort to defraud the court. Defendants attached a

2

declaration purportedly signed by Grissom stating he did not write the declaration attached to

3

plaintiff’s complaint and that the signature affixed to it was not his. (ECF No. 41-2.) Defendants

4

claim the declaration could be seen by inmates who have access to publicly filed court records,

5

posing a safety risk to Grissom and jeopardizing the security of the institution where he is housed.

6

(ECF No. 41-3.) Defendants request to seal the page of the complaint containing the declaration

7

allegedly written and signed by Grissom. (ECF No. 41.)
Plaintiff’s filings in response to defendants request do not indicate that he opposes the request

8
9

to seal. (ECF Nos. 47, 48.) Plaintiff claims Grissom made the same statements in a declaration

10

executed on December 18, 20151 and repeated those statements during a visit with a

11

representative from the Prison Law Office in February 2016. (ECF No. 47.)

12

II.

Legal Standards

13

In evaluating requests to seal, the court starts “‘with a strong presumption in favor of access to

14

court records.’” Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016)

15

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

16

presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed,

17

particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the public

18

to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71

19

F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). Generally, if a party seeks to seal a judicial record, the party

20

bears the burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating “compelling reasons supported

21

by specific factual findings” to justify sealing the records at issue. Kamakana v. City and County

22

of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).
In general, when “‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes’ such as the

23
24

use of records to gratify spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release

25

trade secrets,” there are “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff attached a declaration that states it was written by Grissom and details claims similar to
those made in the declaration attached to plaintiff’s complaint. Defendants addressed this
declaration in their reply (ECF No. 49), but did not request that it be sealed.
2

1

disclosure. Id. at 1179 (internal citations and alterations omitted). However, “[t]he mere fact that

2

the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to

3

further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. (citing Foltz,

4

331 F.3d at 1136).

5

III.

Discussion

6

Defendants have stated Grissom may become a target for assault by other inmates if the

7

declaration remains viewable by the public. They have alleged facts showing that compelling

8

reasons exist to seal the declaration because if viewed by inmates it could pose a safety risk to

9

Grissom as well as the institution where he is presently housed. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

10

1184; Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., 01-cv-0988 MJJ, 2007 WL 3232267 *2

11

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007) (finding compelling reason to protect confidential witnesses from

12

retaliation and harassment.).

13

Based on the information before it at this time and out of an abundance of caution, the court

14

will grant defendant’s request to seal. Additionally, plaintiff is instructed that if he intends to file

15

similar documents in the future he should seek leave of the court or request to file them under seal

16

in accordance with Local Rule 141. In granting the request to seal the court makes no

17

determination regarding the authenticity of the declaration.

18

IV.

19

Show Cause Hearing

Defendants moved for terminating sanctions based on Grissom’s declaration that he did not

20

write or sign the declaration attached to the complaint. (ECF Nos. 41, 41-2.) Plaintiff’s response

21

indicates that the information contained in the declaration is true and Grissom executed a separate

22

declaration containing the same information in December 2015. (ECF No. 47.) After reviewing

23

defendants motion for terminating sanctions (ECF No. 41) and plaintiff’s response (ECF Nos. 47,

24

48), the court has determined it is necessary to have a hearing to show cause why plaintiff has not

25

violated Rule 11. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3) (the court may, on its own motion order a hearing

26

to show cause why conduct by a party has not violated Rule 11).

27

Federal courts have broad powers to impose sanctions against parties or counsel for improper

28

conduct in litigation. The court derives the power to impose sanctions on parties or their counsel
3

1

from three primary sources of authority, “(1) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which applies to

2

signed writings filed with the court, (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which is aimed at penalizing conduct

3

that unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies the proceedings, and (3) the court’s inherent power.”

4

Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001).
Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[b]y presenting to the court

5
6

a pleading, written motion or other paper – whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later

7

advocating it – an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s

8

knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

9

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay,

10

or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; . . . and (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary

11

support, or, if so specifically identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable

12

opportunity for further investigation or discovery . . . .” Rule 11(c) provides for the imposition of

13

appropriate sanctions for a violation of Rule 11(b) on any attorney, law firm or party that has

14

violated the rule or is responsible for the violation committed. Any sanction imposed must be

15

limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others

16

similarly situated. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(4).
Further, “‘courts have inherent power to dismiss an action when a party has willfully deceived

17
18

the court and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice.’”

19

Anheuser-Bushc, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distrib., 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting

20

Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 585, 589 (9th Cir. 1983)). “[B]ecause dismissal is

21

so harsh a penalty, it should be imposed only in extreme circumstances.” Wyle, 709 F.2d at 589.

22

“It is well-settled that dismissal is warranted where . . . a party has engaged deliberately in

23

deceptive practices that undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings . . . .” Anheuser-Busch,

24

Inc., 69 F.3d at 348.

25

At the hearing plaintiff will be required to show cause why his conduct in preparing and filing

26

the declaration of Grissom attached to his complaint is not in violation of Rule 11 and why

27

defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions should not be granted.

28

////
4

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Defendants notice of request to seal (ECF No. 51) is granted;

3

2. The Clerk of the Court shall seal the portion of plaintiff’s complaint containing Grissom’s

4
5
6
7
8
9

declaration (ECF No. 1 at 10);
3. An order to show cause hearing is set before the undersigned on August 30, 2018, at 10:00
a.m in Courtroom 27;
4. Plaintiff, Grissom, and defense counsel shall make a personal appearance for the hearing
on August 30, 2018;
5. The parties may submit supplemental briefing on the order to show cause hearing. If

10

plaintiff chooses to file a supplemental brief, it shall be due no later than twenty-eight days before

11

the show cause hearing. If defendants choose to file a supplemental brief, it shall be due no later

12

than fourteen days before the show cause hearing; and

13

6. Separate orders and writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum will issue to obtain the

14

presence of plaintiff and inmate Grissom at the hearing.

15

Dated: May 31, 2018

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

DLB:12
DLB1/Orders/Prisoner-Civil rights/wash1341.seal

23
24
25
26
27
28
5