Antonetti v. Filson et al

Filing 57

ORDERED that the pro se motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 55 ) is stricken. It is further ordered that the motion to seal (ECF No. 56 ) is denied. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/5/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Case 3:17-cv-00621-MMD-CLB Document 57 Filed 01/05/22 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

JOSEPH ANTONETTI,

7
8
9
10

Case No. 3:17-cv-00621-MMD-CLB
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
FILSON, et al.,
Respondents.

11
12

The Court denied Joseph Antonetti’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28

13

U.S.C. § 2254 on December 9, 2021. (ECF No. 53.) On December 31, 2021, Antonetti’s

14

counsel, Mark D. Eibert, Esq., “provide[d] the Court with Mr. Antonetti’s pro se motion to

15

reconsider the Order.” (ECF Nos. 55, 55-1.) And on January 3, 2022, Mr. Eibert filed an

16

unopposed motion for this Court’s merits order to be filed under seal. (ECF No. 56.)

17

Regarding the pro se motion for reconsideration, Local Rule of Practice 11-6(a)

18

provides that “a party who has appeared by attorney cannot while so represented appear

19

or act in the case.” Therefore, Antonetti’s pro se motion for reconsideration, although

20

provided by his counsel, is not properly before the Court and will be stricken.

21

Turning to the motion for the Court’s merits order to be filed under seal, the Court

22

starts with “a strong presumption in favor of access.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty of

23

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A party

24

seeking to seal a judicial record . . . bears the burden of overcoming this strong

25

presumption” by enunciating “compelling reasons supported by specific factual

26

findings . . . that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

27

disclosure.” Id. Antonetti fails to meet this burden, especially since “the resolution of a

28

Case 3:17-cv-00621-MMD-CLB Document 57 Filed 01/05/22 Page 2 of 3

1

dispute on the merits . . . is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the ‘public’s

2

understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events.’” Id. at 1179.

3

Mr. Eibert explains that Antonetti informed the Court in his pro se motion for

4

reconsideration “that he believed that certain statements made in the Court’s Order

5

jeopardized his life in prison by incorrectly implying that he was a ‘snitch.’” (ECF No. 56

6

at 2.) The statements to which Antonetti refers to in this Court’s merits order regard his

7

“alleg[ation] that Bartoli must have shot Amina and Stewart.” (ECF No. 55-1 at 9.)

8

Antonetti argues that he “never alleged anything about anybody,” rather “the evidence is

9

what put Bartoli under scrutiny.” (Id. at 10.) It appears that Antonetti is referring to the

10

following portion of this Court’s order:

11

14

Antonetti’s defense was that Stewart, who testified that Antonetti shot him
with a 9-millimeter gun, was mistaken when he identified him as the shooter
because although he possessed a 9-millimeter gun on the night of the
shooting, Amina and Stewart were shot with a .25-caliber gun. Antonetti
alleged that Bartoli must have shot Amina and Stewart and accused
Antonetti to protect himself.

15

(ECF No. 53 at 7.) Although Antonetti may not have personally alleged that Bartoli shot

16

Amina and Stewart, that was the defense presented on his behalf at trial. Indeed, Mr.

17

Eibert explained that Antonetti’s defense was “that he pulled the 9-millimeter gun that was

18

the only gun Stewart saw, so Bartoli must have pulled and shot the .25 caliber gun that

19

killed Amina and wounded Stewart.” (ECF No. 19 at 49.) Therefore, because the Court

20

was merely summarizing Antonetti’s defense rather than Antonetti’s personal statements,

21

Antonetti’s argument that this Court improperly implied that he was a snitch lacks merit.

22

As such, Antonetti has not enunciated compelling reasons to seal the merits order. See

23

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178.

12
13

24

It is therefore ordered that the pro se motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 55) is

25

stricken.

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

Case 3:17-cv-00621-MMD-CLB Document 57 Filed 01/05/22 Page 3 of 3

1

It is further ordered that the motion to seal (ECF No. 56) is denied.

2

DATED THIS 5th Day of January 2022.

3
4
5
6

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3