Doe v. Gipson

Filing 7

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO FILE ACTION UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/12/12. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 12 JOHN DOE, 13 14 15 16 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 17 No. C 12-0716 RS (PR) Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO FILE ACTION UNDER SEAL v. C. GIPSON, Warden, Respondent. / 18 19 This is a federal habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a pro se 20 state prisoner. Petitioner “seeks to remain anonymous in prosecuting this [w]rit [p]etition in 21 order to protect his safety and security in prison and beyond if this case is published.” 22 (Docket No. 1.) The Court construes this motion as a request to have the proceedings sealed. 23 So construed, the motion is DENIED without prejudice. 24 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming “a strong 25 presumption in favor of [public] access” to judicial proceedings and records. Foltz v. State 26 Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). The 27 presumption can be overcome only by articulating compelling reasons “that outweigh the 28 No. C 12-0716 RS (PR) ORDER DENYING MOT. TO FILE UNDER SEAL 1 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1135. The 2 Court, then, must “conscientiously balance[ ] the competing interests” of the public and the 3 moving party.” Id. If the Court decides to seal the records, such decision must be based on 4 “a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for [the Court’s] ruling, without relying 5 on hypothesis or conjecture.” Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). 6 Petitioner’s vague and undetailed reasons, cited above, are in no way sufficient to 7 meet this very high standard. Petitioner may file a renewed motion to proceed under seal 8 within 30 days from the date of this order. If petitioner fails to file such a motion by such 9 time, the Court will replace the current JOHN DOE in the above caption with petitioner’s 10 name, and the proceedings will continue as if no request to place the case under seal had 11 been made. Petitioner is reminded that he must cite compelling reasons, and not simply 12 articulate general concerns. The Clerk shall address the envelope with petitioner’s actual 13 name in order to ensure proper delivery of this order. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 12, 2012 RICHARD SEEBORG United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 No. C 12-0716 RS (PR) ORDER DENYING MOT. TO FILE UNDER SEAL

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?