Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03525/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03525-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL A. HUNT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-3525 KJM GGH P

vs.

D. FIELDS,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant Fields retaliated

against him for exercising his First Amendment right to file grievances and pursue civil rights

litigation. Pending before the court is defendant’s motion to review documents in camera and to

file them under seal (Doc. No. 49). According to defendant, the documents are from the

confidential section of defendant’s central file, and submitted in support of defendant’s motion

for summary judgment. See Doc. No. 49 at 1.

Also pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to strike the documents,

arguing that the evidence is irrelevant and prejudicial. See Doc. No. 52.

Plaintiff is also the plaintiff in another civil rights action filed in this court, Case

No. 2:08-cv-0181 MCE CKD P. The 2008 action involves similar claims by plaintiff based on

1

Case 2:09-cv-03525-KJM-AC Document 56 Filed 07/26/12 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

many of the same events covered by the instant case. On July 9, 2012, the magistrate judge in

plaintiff’s 2008 action decided a similar motion filed by defendants to review documents in

camera and to file them under seal. See 2:08-cv-0181, Doc. No. 77. In the July 9, 2012 order,

the magistrate judge granted defendant’s motion to seal in part. While the magistrate judge

ordered some of defendant’s exhibits sealed, she also directed that a January 27, 2007 chrono

marked “confidential” be filed and served on plaintiff. See id.. Defendant has filed the January

27, 2007 chrono in the 2008 action. See Doc. No. 80.

A review of the documents submitted in camera in the instant motion reflects that

the defendant seeks to seal, among other things, the January 27, 2007 chrono now filed by

defendants in the 2008 action.

Relevant Authority

Most courts recognize a presumption of public access to court records based on

common law and First Amendment grounds. The public therefore normally has the right to

inspect and to copy documents filed with the court. See, e.g., Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435

U.S. 589, 597-98, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 1312 (1978). However, public access may be denied where the

court determined that court-filed documents may be used for improper purposes. See Nixon, 435

U.S. at 598; Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1433-34 (9th Cir. 1995). Courts should

consider “the interests advanced by the parties in light of the public interest and the duty of the

courts.” Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d at 1434 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 602). The Supreme

Court has acknowledged that the decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound

discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and

circumstances of the particular case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. After taking all relevant factors

into consideration, the district court must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate

the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture. Hagestad, 49 F.3d at

1434. See also In re Midland etc. v. Annuity Sales etc., __F.3d__, 2012 WL 3024192 (9 Cir. th

2012) (in dispositive matter filings, compelling reasons must exist to justify sealing).

2

Case 2:09-cv-03525-KJM-AC Document 56 Filed 07/26/12 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Local Rule 141 allows the court to seal documents only upon a written order. 

L.R. 141(a). Generally, the contents of such documents are of a nature that require the court to

maintain the confidentiality of the document. For example, the contents may reveal information

that may jeopardize the safety of a particular individual.

Defendant’s Motion

Defendant moves the court to review in camera and to file under seal “for seventy

five years” documents marked as Exhibit B to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Facts,

consisting of 16 consecutively-numbered pages. In conjunction with the instant motion,

defendant has submitted hard copies of these documents for the court’s in camera review. See

Doc. No. 49.

Defendant describes the documents as documents from the confidential section of

plaintiff’s central file. See Doc. No. 49 at 2. Defendant further explains that

[p]laintiff Hunt’s claims against Defendant Fields in this action are based

on the allegation that he was improperly labeled an associated or affiliate

of the Bloods disruptive group, causing him to be placed on lockdown. 

Defendant Fields has moved for summary judgment on the ground that

Defendant was only one source of Plaintiff’s placement on lockdown. In

considering the motion for summary judgment, Defendant requests that the

Court review in camera all confidential documents from Hunt’s central

file....

All the confidential documents provided information, deemed reliable by

prison officials, that Hunt was associating with known members of the

Bloods disruptive group, and affiated [sic] with that group. And those

documents contain information from prison inmates, whose safety would

be placed in serious jeopardy if their identity were known by Hunt or any

other inmates.

Doc. No. 49 at 2.

Analysis

The court will not seal case documents or exhibits from public view without, in

this case, compelling reasons. Defendant represents that the prison inmates who provided the

documented information would be in danger if plaintiff or any other inmate knew their identity. 

Having reviewed the documents, the court finds this to be a plausible concern as to pages 2

through 12, and pages 14 through 16. These pages are confidential memorandum and interviews

3

Case 2:09-cv-03525-KJM-AC Document 56 Filed 07/26/12 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

dating from 2000, 2005, and 2007 which name and describe inmates who are members and

associates of different gangs at CSP-Sacramento. Defendant’s concern represents a compelling

reason to seal.

Page 1 is a declaration of the Custodian of Central Record Files. Page 13 is the

January 27, 2007 chrono already filed in plaintiff’s 2008 action. As noted in the magistrate

judge’s July 9, 2012 order, filed in the 2008 action, this page does not name or describe any

particular inmate, and does not cite any information from confidential sources. Instead, it

documents plaintiff’s claim that he “is a non-affiliated inmate.”

In light of defendant’s attestation and given that in camera review is a permissible

method of determining the reliability of information used to classify plaintiff as gang-affiliated,

the court will grant defendant’s motion to seal 15 pages, comprising pages 1 through 12 and

pages 14 thorough 16 of defendant’s Exhibit B. See Zimmerlee v. Keeney, 831 F.2d 183, 186-87

99th Cir. 1987). It is the practice of this court to maintain case documents under seal for an

undermined period of time, until they are ordered unsealed by the court. Accordingly, the court

shall partially grant defendant’s motion and direct the Clerk of the Court to seal Exhibit B, pages

1 through 12, and pages 14 through 16, until they are ordered unsealed by the Court. See PuenteHudson v. Adams, 2010 WL 1625758 at *2 (E.D. Cal. April 21, 2010) (same).

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike

Plaintiff moves to strike the sealed documents, alleging that they are irrelevant

and prejudicial. Because plaintiff’s objections go toward the content of the evidence, as opposed

to whether they should be sealed, the court will address plaintiff’s motion when it rules on the

parties’ motions for summary judgment.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

1. Defendant’s motion for the court to review documents and file them under seal

(#49) is granted as to Exhibit B to defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Facts, pages 1 through

12, and pages 14 through 16; and denied as to page 13.

4

Case 2:09-cv-03525-KJM-AC Document 56 Filed 07/26/12 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to seal the case documents submitted by

defendants as Exhibit B to defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Facts, pages 1 through 12, and

pages 14 through 16, until they are ordered unsealed by the court.

3. Defendant is to file and serve page 13 of Exhibit B to defendant’s Statement of

Undisputed Facts on plaintiff within 7 days of this order.

4. On July 12, 2012, this court granted plaintiff twenty-one days to supplement

his opposition, if he chose to do so, in light of the recent Court of Appeals’ decision in Woods v.

Carey. See Doc. No. 55. In order to allow plaintiff to address page 13 of Exhibit B, should he

chose to do so, the court grants plaintiff an additional fourteen (14) days to file and serve his

optional supplemental opposition. Plaintiff is reminded that no extensions of this deadline shall

be provided.

DATED: July 26, 2012

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:rb

hunt3525.seal

5

Case 2:09-cv-03525-KJM-AC Document 56 Filed 07/26/12 Page 5 of 5