Burley v. Prelesnik
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DE-PUBLISH CASE 62 Request filed by Edward Burley Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
EDWARD DONALD BURLEY,
Case No. 11-CV-11258
HON. AVERN COHN
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DE-PUBLISH CASE (Doc. 62)
This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 7, 2012, the
Court denied the petition. (Doc. 39). The Court did not submit its opinion for publication.
However, the opinion was apparently put online on LEXIS and Westlaw’s electronic
databases. See 2012 US Dist LEXIS 127488, 2012 WL 3887204.
Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to “de-publish” the case and order LEXIS,
Westlaw and any other electronic databases to remove the opinion from their electronic
databases. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
Petitioner says that the opinion has exposed him to imminent danger in prison
because it refers to the fact that Petitioner had received a plea bargain in exchange for
being a cooperating witness.
While the Court is sympathetic to Petitioner’s concerns, it cannot grant
Petitioner’s request. As another judge explained in denying a similar request:
The Court does not have any control or authority over the companies and
services which publish federal judicial opinions. Therefore, the Court cannot
order Thomson Reuters, Westlaw, LexisNexis or any other legal publisher or
publication service to remove this Court’s opinions from their electronic
databases or publications.
Hinson v. United States, No. 4:06-CV-769 CAS, 2010 WL 3724869, at *1–2 (E.D. Mo.
Sept. 17, 2010). By contrast, in Davies v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 236 F. Supp. 2d
445 (M.D. Pa. 2002), the district court ordered a prior decision be removed from
publication. In Davies, unlike this case, the opinion at issue had been vacated. Thus,
Davies does not support Petitioner’s request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 21, 2017
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?