Washington v. Young, et al.

Filing 56

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 6/6/2018 GRANTING defendants' 51 request to seal; the Clerk shall SEAL the portion of plaintiff's motion containing Grissom's declaration (ECF No. 47 at 3); and defendants' 55 request to remove plaintiff's opposition from the docket is DENIED. (Yin, K)

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
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. Defendants filed a request to seal (ECF No. 51), plaintiff filed an

20

opposition to the request (ECF No. 54), and defendants filed a motion to remove plaintiff’s

21

opposition from the docket (ECF No. 55). For the reasons set forth below the court will grant

22

defendants’ request to seal and deny the motion to remove plaintiff’s opposition from the docket.

23
24

I.

Request to Seal

Defendants moved to seal a portion of plaintiff’s motion containing a declaration purportedly

25

written and signed by a third party witness, inmate Grissom. (ECF No. 51.) The court previously

26

granted defendants’ request to seal a portion of plaintiff’s complaint containing a different

27

declaration purportedly written and signed by Grissom. (See ECF No. 53.) The same reasoning

28

applies to this request as applied to defendants’ prior request because the documents are

1

substantially similar. In an abundance of caution and in deference to defendants’ assertions that

2

maintaining the declaration on the docket could jeopardize the safety and security of inmates as

3

well as staff, the court will grant defendants’ request to seal. As stated previously, in granting the

4

request to seal the court makes no ruling on the authenticity of the declaration.

5
6

II.

Request to Remove Opposition from the Docket

Defendants requested that the court remove plaintiff’s filing, captioned “Notice of Motion and

7

Motion of Plaintiff’s objection to seal Declaration at ECF No. 47 p. 3” (ECF No. 54), from the

8

docket. (ECF No. 55.) The court construes plaintiff’s objections as a request to file an opposition

9

to defendants’ request to seal and grants the request nunc pro tunc. Defendants argue plaintiff’s

10
11

opposition should be removed pursuant to Local Rule 141(c).
However, Local Rule 141(c) is not applicable in this instance because the document

12

defendants request to seal has already been filed and the filing of plaintiff’s opposition did not

13

reveal any information that had not previously been available to the public. Further, plaintiff’s

14

arguments in the opposition are the same as the underlying claim in this action. Defendants cite

15

no other authority in support of their request to remove plaintiff’s opposition from the docket.

16

Accordingly, the court will deny the request to remove plaintiff’s opposition from the docket.

17

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

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

19

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

20

declaration (ECF No. 47 at 3); and
3. Defendants’ request to remove plaintiff’s opposition from the docket (ECF No. 55) is

21
22

denied.

23

Dated: June 6, 2018

24
25
26
27
28

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

2