Remington v. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
ORDER denying 11 Motion for Extension of Time to File; denying 11 Motion to Seal Document. If Plaintiff wants the court to consider her in forma pauperis application, she must refile it as a public document in conformity w ith Local Civil Rule 79.2(b)(3), or alternatively Plaintiff can pay the $400.00 filing and administrative fee, within 14 days of the date of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr on 10/11/2017. (A copy of this order was sent to pro se plaintiff via US mail directed to: Maria S. Remington, P O Box 52074, Durham, NC 27717) (Collins, S.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
MARIA S. REMINGTON,
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
AT CHAPEL HILL,
This matter is before the court on the pro se Plaintiff's combined motion for extension of
time and motion to file her in forma pauperis application under seal. [DE-11]. Plaintiff initially
filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and complaint on July 24, 2017. [DE-1].
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 12, 2017. [DE-5]. Plaintiff was ordered to file
her in forma pauper is application on the correct form and to correct other procedural deficiencies
by no later than October 5, 2017. [DE-6]. Plaintiff subsequently addressed the deficiencies [DE7 through -1 OJ, but filed her in for ma pauper is application as a proposed sealed document and now
asks the court to seal it permanently, [DE-11] at 2. Plaintiff also seeks an extension of time to
comply with the deadlines in the court's September 6, 2017 order. Id. at 1.
With respect to Plaintiff's motion for extension of time, it appears Plaintiff has confused
the September 6, 2017 deadline set by the court in another case with the deadlines in this case. See
Remington v. Dipierro, No. 5:17-CV-374-BR, Order [DE-3] (E.D.N.C. Aug. 7, 2017) (ordering
plaintiff to particularize her complaint and pay the filing fee or file an informa pauperis application
by no later than September 6, 2017). In this case, Plaintiff has already complied with the deadlines
set by the court by filing her civil cover sheet [DE-4], notice of self-representation [DE-7],
financial disclosure statement [DE-8], proposed summons [DE-9], and in forma pauperis
application on the correct form [DE-10]. Plaintiff has also filed an amended complaint. [DE-5].
Accordingly, there is no clear purpose the extension of time would serve and the motion in that
respect is denied.
Plaintiff also moves the court to seal her in forma pauperis application because it contains
"very sensitive information" that can be used against her if disclosed to the public and will affect
Plaintiff and her children. [DE-11] at 2. "[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to
inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon
v. Warner Commc 'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (internal footnote omitted). "The right of
public access springs from the First Amendment and the common-law tradition that court
proceedings are presumptively open to public scrutiny." Va. Dep 't of State Police v. Wash. Post,
386 F.3d 567, 575 (4th Cir. 2004). However, this presumption '"can be rebutted if countervailing
interests heavily outweigh the public interests in access,' and '[t]he party seeking to overcome the
presumption bears the burden of showing some significant interest that outweighs the presumption."
Id. (quoting Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988)).
Applications to proceed informa pauperis are generally accessible to the public, despite containing
some financial information regarding the applicant, and Plaintiff has not provided any specific
reason why her application should be sealed. See SAiv. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 149 F. Supp. 3d
99, 127 (D.D.C. 2015) ("Section 1915 requires the submission of a detailed affidavit, and, under
the Court's practice these submissions, like other filings, are a matter of public record.). Plaintiff's
stated reason for requesting to seal the application-that the information contained in the
application can be used against her and will affect her and her children-is conclusory and fails to
demonstrate any interest that outweighs the public interests in access. See id. at 128 (concluding
that a litigant must demonstrate a particularized need for filing an in forma pauperis application
under seal because otherwise "the public would be denied important transparency in the working
of the judiciary, opposing parties would be deprived of the opportunity to raise objections, and the
courts would lose a corresponding check on potential misstatements or omissions in IFP
affidavits."); see also Sai v. US. Postal Serv., 135 S. Ct. 1915, 191 L. Ed. 2d 762 (2015) (denying
petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the denial of a motion to file in forma pauperis
application under seal and ex parte ). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to seal her in forma pauperis
application is denied.
Local Civil Rule 79.2(b)(3) governs the handling of proposed sealed documents when a
motion to seal is denied and provides as follows:
If the motion to seal is denied, the document will remain sealed and the word
"proposed" will remain in the docket entry for the document in order to preserve
the record. The document will not be considered by the court, except as provided
herein or as otherwise ordered by the court. A party desiring to remove a proposed
sealed document or docket entry therefor from the docket sheet must file a motion
to strike in accordance with Local Civil Rule 7 .1. A party whose motion to seal is
denied but that desires the court to consider a proposed sealed document as a
publicly filed document shall file the document as a public document within 3 days
after entry of the order denying the motion to seal or within such other period as
the court directs.
If Plaintiff wants the court to consider her in forma pauperis application, she must refile it as
a public document in conformity with Local Civil Rule 79.2(b)(3), or alternatively Plaintiff
can pay the $400.00 filing and administrative fee, within 14 days of the date of this order.
SO ORDERED, this the~ day of October 2017.
Robert B. Jones, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
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?