Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01327/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01327-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY HILL,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09cv1327-LAB (CAB)

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO

vs. FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

DOMINGO URIBE, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner’s counsel filed a motion for an order authorizing funds to conduct an

investigation in support of the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because no explanation of

what the money would be used for was provided, the Court ordered additional briefing.

Instead of filing a brief supported by an affidavit, Petitioner’s counsel lodged a brief and

submitted a proposed order to seal it. 

The proposed order (lodged in paper form only, rather than in editable electronic

format) includes the recital that the documents are sealed for good cause. There was no

effort to show good cause, however. No motion to seal was filed, and no explanation of why

sealing is appropriate was provided. 

Filing of documents ex parte and under seal is not automatic in civil cases, including

habeas proceedings, nor is it even very common. The First Amendment creates a “strong

presumption” in favor of public access to court proceedings and records. Press-Enterprise

Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 10 (1986); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457

- 1 - 09cv1327

Case 3:09-cv-01327-LAB-DHB Document 51 Filed 06/20/14 Page 1 of 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

U.S. 596, 603 (1982). The party seeking to seal records must show good cause for sealing

records supporting a non-dispositive motion. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447

F.3d 1172, 1179 (9 Cir. 2006). The Court must weigh factors such as the public interest in th

understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in its

improper use, and must articulate a factual basis justifying confidentiality, not based on

hypothesis or conjecture. Id. at 1177.

Furthermore, the briefing Petitioner’s counsel wishes to have sealed does not appear

to concern confidential matters at all. This is a civil case, not a criminal trial. Petitioner is

collaterally attacking a past conviction, not facing possible conviction going forward. And in

the hypothetical event his conviction were vacated and he were tried again, the information

in the briefing would not prejudice him; this is particularly true with regard to information on

the attorney abandonment issue, which has nothing to do with his underlying conviction.

Allowing the documents to be filed under seal would violate Respondent’s due

process rights. Whether Petitioner should be permitted to undertake discovery is a disputed

issue in this case. With the Court’s leave, Respondent filed a brief opposing discovery

(Docket no. 48), and argument on the issue is scheduled. Entertaining Petitioner’s secret

arguments in a document Respondent isn’t allowed to see would be improper. And of course

the public has an interest in knowing how and why public funds are being expended, to

gather information about whether habeas petitioners are being coddled or harshly treated,

and to make their views on these subjects known. Sealing these documents would stymie

these legitimate exercises of important rights.

Leave to file documents under seal is DENIED. Petitioner may file his briefing in the

docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 20, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 09cv1327

Case 3:09-cv-01327-LAB-DHB Document 51 Filed 06/20/14 Page 2 of 2