Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00535/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00535-8/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY KARL BLACKWELL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-0535 GEB DAD P

vs.

C/O PIZZOLA, 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant Pizzola confiscated his

personal JWIN radio in violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Fourteenth

Amendment. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to lodge “confidential

material” with the court. Specifically, plaintiff appears to be seeking a court order to seal a list of

names of inmates who have allegedly been able to retain their radios through attrition.

Plaintiff is advised that, “[u]nless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally

kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City &

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff, as the party seeking to seal

the record in this matter, bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption by offering

“compelling reasons” supported by specific factual findings. Id. at 1179 (“In general,

Case 2:09-cv-00535-GEB-DAD Document 30 Filed 01/07/10 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

2

‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing

court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’

such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous

statements, or release trade secrets.”). 

In this case, plaintiff has made no showing in support of his request to seal any

part of the record in the case. Nor has plaintiff given the court any reason to believe that the

deputy attorney general assigned to this case or the defendants have any intent of using the record

in this case for improper purposes. Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion for leave

to lodge “confidential material” with the court. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s

November 2, 2009 motion (Doc. No. 27) is denied.

DATED: January 6, 2010.

DAD:9

blac0535.seal

Case 2:09-cv-00535-GEB-DAD Document 30 Filed 01/07/10 Page 2 of 2