MOBLEY v. UNKNOWN CAPTAIN et al
ORDER re 2 MOTION to Seal Case filed by RAY CHRIS MOBLEY is DENIED. Plaintiff shall either pay $350.00 filing fee or file a motion for IFP. Clerk directed to send a blank motion for IFP for non-prisoners. (Fee/Motion for IFP due by 11/18/2011.). Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R JONES on 10/31/2011. (Blank Motion for IFP sent w/order to Plaintiff.) (jws)
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
RAY CHRIS MOBLEY,
CASE NO. 5:11-cv-284-MP-GRJ
UNKNOWN CAPTAIN, et al.,
Plaintiff initiated this civil action by filing Doc. 1, a pro se non-prisoner civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff failed to either pay the $350.00 filing
fee or file a motion for leave to proceed as a pauper. Pursuant to N.D. Fla. Loc. R.
5.1(H), “[a] civil action shall not be filed by the clerk until the fee is paid . . . unless the
complaint or petition is accompanied by a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
Plaintiff also filed a Motion To Seal Case (Doc. 2) along with his Complaint in
which he requested the Court to seal this case. In support of his request, Plaintiff
states multiple law enforcement agencies in Georgia and Florida have shared
information to cover up their crimes against Plaintiff. Other than that statement, the
Plaintiff does not offer any further reasons or any legal justification for sealing the case.
Sealing of court records is highly disfavored. Brown v. Advantage Engineering,
Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1015-16 (11th Cir. 1992). Records may only be sealed where a
party shows a compelling interest in doing so, and where the sealing is narrowly tailored
to effect that interest. Id. “[B]efore sealing a document, the district court must identify
Page 2 of 2
and articulate ‘an overriding interest based on findings that [a seal] is essential to
preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The interest is to
be articulated along with findings specific enough that a reviewing court can determine
whether the [sealing] order was properly entered.’” Dees v. Hydradry, Inc., 706 F. Supp.
2d 1227, 1245 (M.D. Fla. 2010)(quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of
California, 464 U.S. 501, 510, 104 S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984)). Because Plaintiff
has failed to provide any explanation, reasons or grounds why this case should be
sealed – other than his assertion that law enforcement agencies have shared
information to his detriment – Plaintiff’s motion is due to be denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Plaintiff shall either pay the $350.00 filing fee or file a motion for leave to
proceed as a pauper on or before November 18, 2011.
The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a blank motion to proceed in forma
pauperis for use by non-prisoners.
Failure to comply with this order within the allotted time will result in a
recommendation that this case be dismissed.
Plaintiff’s Motion To Seal Case (Doc. 2) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of October 2011.
s/Gary R. Jones
GARY R. JONES
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No: 5:11-cv-284-MP-GRJ
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?