Hicks v. Wetzel et al

Filing 4

ORDER DENYING motion 2 for leave to file document ex parte & under seal. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 11/30/17. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES RAY HICKS,
Petitioner
v.
JOHN E. WETZEL, Secretary,
Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections; ROBERT GILMORE,
Superintendent of the State
Correctional Institution at Greene;
and MARK GARMAN,
Superintendent of the State
Correctional Institution at
Rockview,
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 1:17-CV-1969
(Chief Judge Conner)

THIS IS A CAPITAL CASE

ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Presently before the court is petitioner Charles Ray Hicks’ motion for leave to
file document ex parte and under seal. (Doc. 2.) In the motion, petitioner requests
that his financial affidavit (Doc. 2-3) in support of his motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and for appointment of federal habeas corpus counsel (Doc. 1) be
filed ex parte and under seal. After review of the documents filed by petitioner
(Doc. 2), and for the reasons set forth herein, the court will deny petitioner’s motion.
In support of his motion to seal, petitioner suggests that because his motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of federal counsel has
triggered his “mandatory right to qualified legal counsel,” McFarland v. Scott, 512
U.S. 849, 854 (1994), the Commonwealth does not yet have standing and, therefore,
it is appropriate to file petitioner’s financial affidavit ex parte and under seal. (See
Doc. 2.) This argument does not convince the court that the Commonwealth’s

current standing serves as a legal basis for sealing petitioner’s financial affidavit.
Rather, the Commonwealth’s lack of standing to object to the appointment of
federal counsel in this case is not a reason to seal such a document. Further, the
financial affidavit does not contain confidential or sensitive information that, should
it remain unsealed, would prejudice petitioner in this case. (See Doc. 2-3.) The
court does not foresee damaging results should petitioner’s financial affidavit
remain public.
Federal district courts are presumptively open courts containing, for the
majority, open records in civil matters. Federal judges have discretion to determine
what is in public view and what is not. In this case, petitioner’s state criminal case
was not sealed. See Commonwealth v. Hicks, CP-45-CR-0000391-2008 (Monroe
Cnty. Comm. Pl. 2008). The court does not see any reason to now keep records such
as those in support of petitioner’s in forma pauperis status confidential in this
subsequent civil proceeding brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
ACCORDINGLY, this 28th day of November, 2017, upon consideration of the
motion for leave to file document ex parte and under seal (Doc. 2), it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 2) is DENIED.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania