Morales v. Goldbeck et al

Filing 21

ORDER denying 19 Motion for Disclosure of Chambers Papers -- For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN SUMMARY ORDER, Plaintiff's motion for disclosure of chambers papers is denied. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 15(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail to pro se plaintiff a copy of this Electronic Order and the Attached Written Summary Order. This case was previously closed by court order. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 3/27/2014. (Irizarry, Dora)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------x
ERNEST T. MORALES, pro se,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
BRIAN L. GOLDBECK, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
--------------------------------------------------------x

SUMMARY ORDER
12-CV-2350(DLI)

DORA L. IRIZARRY, United States District Judge:
Pro se 1 Plaintiff Ernest T. Morales, a United States citizen, brought this action alleging
the process by which the United States consulate in Guangzhou, China denied his fiancée a visa
to enter the United States was unlawful. On March 11, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Order at 1, Dkt. Entry No.
17.) On March 12, 2013, the Clerk of the Court entered a judgment consistent with the Court’s
Order.

(Judgment, Dkt. Entry No. 18.) On March 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for

Disclosure of Chambers Papers and Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion for
Disclosure. (Motion for Disclosure of Chambers Papers (“Mot. for Discl.”), Dkt. Entry No. 19;
Mem. of Law in Support of Mot. for Discl., Dkt. Entry No. 20.) Plaintiff seeks “Case-related
correspondence and background material (including but not limited to memoranda between
judges and law clerks, drafts of orders and opinions, other correspondence or papers generated in
this action)” and “whatever software is used as a template for law clerks to use to deny relief to
litigants.” (Mot. for Discl. at 1-2.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s request is denied.

1

The Court interprets Petitioner’s submissions “to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Triestman v.
Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F. 3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (emphasis omitted); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (pro se submissions, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”).

According to the Second Circuit, a court’s decision making process should be kept in
great confidence. Goetz v. Crosson, 41 F.3d 800, 805 (2d Cir. 1994) (“The inner workings of
administrative decision making processes are almost never subject to discovery . . . . Clearly, the
inner workings of decision making by courts are kept in even greater confidence.”). This
proposition follows from the “well-settled” law that testimony regarding the “deliberative
thought processes of judges, juries or arbitrators is inadmissible.” Rubens v. Mason, 387 F.3d
183, 191 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Fayerweather v. Ritch, 195 U.S. 276, 307 (1904)). Similarly,
other jurisdictions have recognized a “judicial privilege” that protects the confidential
communications among judges and their staff to promote the proper discharge of their judicial
duties. See In re United States, 463 F.3d 1328, 1332 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (noting Eleventh and
Seventh Circuit decisions discussing judicial privilege).
The materials requested by Plaintiff are confidential and not subject to disclosure based
on Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the outcome of his case. While Plaintiff has cited to cases that
discuss the importance of transparency in the court system, these cases deal with the public
nature of court proceedings, not the inner thought processes of judges. For example, Plaintiff
cites United States v. Cojab, 996 F.2d 1404 (2d Cir. 1993). The Second Circuit in Cojab
addressed the public’s right to attend a court proceeding and view documents filed on the docket
in a criminal case. Ultimately, the court held that the district court had properly limited access to
the hearing and sealed documents. Id. at 1408-09. The request in this case differs significantly
from the request to observe proceedings and documents that are generally presumed to be open
to the public. In this case, Plaintiff seeks materials that are confidential and would reveal the
inner workings of the judge’s thought processes.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Disclosure of Chambers Papers is
denied. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order
would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the
purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
March 27, 2014
_______________/s/_____________
DORA L. IRIZARRY
United States District Judge