Ali v. Gensler

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 . The Court DENIES plaintiff's motions to seal, and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Currault's R&R as its opinion. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Sarah S Vance on 02/8/2024.(cs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MERYEM ALI

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 23-6692

GARY GENSLER

SECTION “R” (4)
ORDER AND REASONS

On November 3, 2023, plaintiff Meryem Ali filed a complaint pro se
and in forma pauperis against defendant Gary Gensler, chair of the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission, along with a motion to seal her
case.1 The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to seal,
finding that while plaintiff did not offer any justification for sealing the case
sufficient to overcome the “strong public presumption of public access,”
United States v. Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev., 624 F.3d 685, 690 (5th
Cir. 2010), documents attached to the complaint contained sensitive
personal, financial, and medical information, and should be sealed.2 As part
of the review mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for pauper cases, Magistrate
Judge Donna Currault issued a show cause order on November 20, 2023,
permitting plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis, but ordering the Clerk of

1
2

R. Docs. 1 & 2.
R. Doc. 4.

Court to withhold issuance of summons pending plaintiff’s response
explaining why her claims should not be summarily dismissed as frivolous.3
Plaintiff did not respond to the show cause order, but filed another motion
to seal her case on December 7, 2023. 4
On January 17, 2024, Magistrate Judge Currault issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court dismiss plaintiff’s
complaint with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 5 Plaintiff did not object to the R&R, but filed a
third motion to seal her case on January 22, 2024.6 The Court considers the
motions to seal and the R&R recommending dismissal under the pauper
statute below.

I.

DISCUSSION
A.

Motions to Seal

The Court denied plaintiff’s first request to seal her case, but sealed the
attachments to the complaint. 7 Plaintiff’s subsequent motions to seal do not

3
4
5
6
7

R. Doc. 5.
R. Doc. 7.
R. Doc. 8.
R. Doc. 9.
R. Doc. 4.
2

present any new evidence or argument, but simply assert that the Court
“must” seal the case because plaintiff’s “information is continuing to be
exploited via the local news.”8 Harm to reputation and embarrassment are
not sufficient reasons to seal the case. See Scott v. Roman Catholic Church
Diocese of Baton Rouge, No. 19-659, 2020 WL 7083973, at *2 (M.D. La. Nov.
18, 2020) (collecting cases). Further, because the action involves a public
official, the public interest in access to court records in the case is particularly
strong. Jaufre ex rel. Jaufre v. Taylor, 351 F. Supp. 2d 514, 518 (E.D. La.
2005) (“[T]he public’s interest in access to court records ‘is particularly
legitimate and important where, as in this case, at least one of the parties to
the action is a public entity or official.’” (quoting Marcus v. St. Tammany
Parish Sch. Bd., No. 95-3140, 1997 WL 313418, at *5 (E.D. La. June 9,
1997))). The Court finds that plaintiff fails to articulate any justification for
sealing her case sufficient to overcome the right of public access. The
motions to seal must be denied.

B.

Dismissal Pursuant to Screening Mandate

As part of the screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
Magistrate Judge Currault issued an R&R recommending dismissal of

8

See R. Docs. 7 & 9.
3

plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a
claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). No party objected to the R&R.
Therefore, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. See Douglass v. United
Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded
by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed,
the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record in order to accept the recommendation.”). The Court finds no clear
error. Accordingly, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Currault’s R&R as its
opinion with respect to the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).

II.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motions to

seal, and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Currault’s R&R as its opinion.
Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____
8th day of February, 2024.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4