Lowry v. Baker et al

Filing 20

ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for enlargement of time (ECF No. 19 ) is granted : Petitioner's response to the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14 is due by November 23, 2018. Petitioner's second motion for appointm ent of counsel (ECF No. 18 ) is denied. Respondents' motion to seal (ECF No. 16 ) is denied without prejudice, and the sealed exhibit (ECF No. 17 ) is hereby stricken from the record. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/15/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9

Case No. 3:18-cv-00224-MMD-CBC
CHRISTOPHER LOWRY,
ORDER

10
11
12
13

Petitioner,
v.
RENE BAKER, et al.,
Respondents.

14

This pro se habeas matter comes before the Court on several motions. First,

15

Petitioner has moved for an enlargement of time to file an opposition to Respondents’

16

motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 19.) The motion is granted. Petitioner will have until

17

November 23, 2018, to file an opposition to Respondents’ motion to dismiss.

18

Second, Petitioner has renewed his motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No.

19

18.) The Court has already denied a motion for appointment of counsel in this case.

20

Petitioner offers no basis for reconsideration of that decision or additional factors that

21

would justify appointment of counsel here. The second motion for appointment of counsel

22

(ECF No. 18) is therefore denied.

23

Finally, Respondents have moved for leave to file Exhibit 7 under seal. Exhibit 7

24

comprises letters submitted by Petitioner for consideration at his state court sentencing

25

hearing. (ECF No. 17.) Respondents assert that these documents contain confidential

26

information and moreover were sealed by the state trial court and have never been

27

unsealed. (ECF No. 16.) Having reviewed the sealed exhibit, the Court doubts whether a

28

compelling need to seal the letters outweighs the public’s interest in open access to court

1

records. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006).

2

The issue is, however, unnecessary to decide at this point as the letters are irrelevant to

3

the pending motion to dismiss and, more importantly, likely irrelevant to claims in the

4

Petition. Accordingly, the motion to seal (ECF No. 16) is denied without prejudice, and

5

the sealed exhibit (ECF No. 17) will be stricken from the record. Should the letters at

6

some point become relevant to this case and Respondents still believe they should be

7

filed under seal, Respondents may make the required showing at that time.

8

It is therefore ordered that Petitioner’s motion for enlargement of time (ECF No.

9

19) is granted, and Petitioner will have until November 23, 2018, to file his opposition to

10
11
12

Respondents’ motion to dismiss.
It is further ordered that Petitioner’s second motion for appointment of counsel
(ECF No. 18) is denied.

13

It is further ordered that Respondents’ motion to seal (ECF No. 16) is denied

14

without prejudice, and the sealed exhibit (ECF No. 17) is hereby stricken from the record.

15

DATED THIS 15th day of October 2018.

16
17

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2