Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_24-cv-08220/USCOURTS-azd-3_24-cv-08220-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Devrie Breanne Carlson,

Petitioner,

v. 

Duane-Cody Carlson,

Respondent.

No. CV-24-08220-PCT-DWL

ORDER 

On November 7, 2022, Petitioner Devrie Breanne Carlson initiated a divorce 

proceeding by filing a Petition for Dissolution of a Non-Covenant Marriage with Minor 

Children (“the Petition”) in Navajo County Superior Court. (Doc. 2-1 at 3.) The Petition 

raises no federal questions and establishes that Respondent Duane Cody Carlson, 

Petitioner, and their children are Arizona citizens.

On November 19, 2024, Respondent lodged a notice of removal (Doc. 2) and filed 

a “Request/Motion to Seal Case Without Redaction” (Doc. 1). 

The public has a general right to inspect judicial records and documents, such that 

a party seeking to seal a judicial record must overcome “a strong presumption in favor of 

access.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). To 

do so, the party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings 

that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 

disclosure . . . .” Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court 

must then “conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the party who 

Case 3:24-cv-08220-DWL Document 6 Filed 12/03/24 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

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

27

28

seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 (internal quotation marks 

omitted). “After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial 

records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for 

its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

The “stringent” compelling reasons standard applies to all filed motions and their 

attachments where the motion is “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” 

Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). 

Here, Respondent asks to conduct the entire case under seal. Thus, the “compelling 

reasons” standard applies. See, e.g., Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 565 F.3d 1106, 1115 

(9th Cir. 2009) (noting that the “compelling reasons” standard applies to most judicial 

records).

The motion to seal states only that the Social Security numbers, birthdates, and 

names of the minor children are confidential and offers no reason why the case should be 

sealed in its entirety. (Doc. 1.) Thus, although the confidential Social Security numbers, 

birthdates, and names of the minor children should be redacted, there is no compelling 

reason to seal the entire action.

Turning to a separate threshold issue, the Court has an independent obligation to 

determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 

526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). The lodged notice of removal asserts that the Navajo County 

Superior Court and Petitioner have violated Respondent’s federal rights. But such an 

assertion does not provide this Court with subject-matter jurisdiction over the state court 

divorce proceeding. See, e.g., Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808

(1986) (“[W]hether a claim ‘arises under’ federal law must be determined by reference to 

the ‘well-pleaded complaint.’ A defense that raises a federal question is inadequate to 

confer federal jurisdiction.”) (citation omitted). The “complaint” (the Petition) does not 

include any claims that arise under federal law. Because the Court lacks subject-matter 

jurisdiction, this action must be remanded to Navajo County Superior Court.

Case 3:24-cv-08220-DWL Document 6 Filed 12/03/24 Page 2 of 4
- 3 -

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

27

28

The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal this action and remand it. The sealed motion 

to seal (Doc. 1) shall be unsealed. The motion to allow non-electronic exhibits, which is 

currently lodged under seal (Doc. 3), shall be unsealed and denied as moot. However, the 

Court concludes that the notice of removal and its attachments, which together total 369 

pages, may remain lodged under seal on the federal docket only because the minor 

children’s sensitive information appears throughout the lengthy filing, and the state court 

has no doubt already dealt with the issue of what must be redacted and what must be made 

publicly available. The public interest in this material can be satisfied by viewing the state 

court records, with the exception of the notice of removal itself, which is two pages long 

and consists mainly of accusations regarding the state court’s alleged mishandling of the 

divorce proceeding. Unfortunately, the notice was not filed separately, as it should have 

been—rather, an additional 33 pages of material, including the minor children’s medical 

records, were combined with the two-page notice of removal into one document. (Doc. 2.) 

As such, the Clerk cannot separate the first two pages and file them without technical 

difficulties. Nevertheless, the compelling public interest demands that these two pages be 

filed, and rather than ordering Respondent, who is proceeding pro se, to publicly file the 

two-page notice of removal after this action has already been remanded—which seems to 

invite potential confusion and error—the Court will respectfully ask the Clerk of Court to 

print the first two pages of the document lodged under seal at Doc. 2 and file those two 

pages in the public record as the unsealed Notice of Removal in this action before 

effectuating the remand.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to seal (Doc. 1) is denied. The motion to seal 

(Doc. 1) and lodged motion to allow electronic exhibits (Doc. 3) shall be unsealed, and the 

latter motion denied as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the filing at Doc. 2 and its attachments shall 

remain lodged under seal.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file the first two pages 

Case 3:24-cv-08220-DWL Document 6 Filed 12/03/24 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

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

27

28

of the filing at Doc. 2 in the public record as the Notice of Removal.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall remand this action to 

the Navajo County Superior Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Dated this 3rd day of December, 2024.

Case 3:24-cv-08220-DWL Document 6 Filed 12/03/24 Page 4 of 4