Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00580/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00580-18/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA A. MCCOLM,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00580-LJO-JDP

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL

ECF No. 84

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT THE MOTION SEEKING RELIEF 

FROM, OR ALTERATIONS TO, THE 

JUDGMENT BE DENIED

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 14 

DAYS

ECF No. 83

Plaintiff Patricia A. McColm is a former prisoner proceeding in this now-closed civil 

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and § 504 of 

the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”). On September 11, 2019, the court dismissed the case based on 

plaintiff’s repeated failures to cure pleading deficiencies and to comply with court orders. ECF 

No. 81. On October 8, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion seeking relief from, or alterations to, that 

judgment, ECF No. 83, as well as a motion to seal medical documents offered in support of the 

motion to amend, ECF No. 84. For the reasons below, the court will grant plaintiff’s motion to 

seal and recommend to the district judge that the motion seeking relief from, or alterations to, the 

judgment be denied.

Case 1:14-cv-00580-LJO-JDP Document 85 Filed 01/17/20 Page 1 of 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

2

DISCUSSION 

Motion to Seal

The legal standard for a motion to seal turns “on whether 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, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). In general (though not always), this circuit treats “judicial records 

attached to dispositive motions differently from records attached to non-dispositive motions.” 

Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). Requests to seal 

documents attached to dispositive motions will be granted only if “compelling reasons” for 

sealing are shown; requests to seal documents attached to most non-dispositive motions will be 

granted if supported by “good cause.” Id.

Reasonable minds might disagree as to whether a motion seeking relief from, or 

alterations to, the judgment in an already-closed case is best characterized as “dispositive.” 

However, we need not resolve this question: even if the underlying motion is dispositive or “more 

than tangentially related to the merits of a case,” the plaintiff’s interest in protecting medical 

privacy constitutes a compelling reason to seal the records in this instance. See Williams v. 

Nevada Dep’t of Corr., No. 2:13-CV-941, 2014 WL 3734287, at *1 (D. Nev. July 29, 2014)

(gathering cases and noting that “the need to protect medical privacy has qualified as a 

‘compelling reason,’ for sealing records in connection with a dispositive motion”). The court will 

therefore grant plaintiff’s motion to seal. 

Motion Seeking Relief From, or Amendment to, the Judgment

The party seeking relief from a judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure must show that one of the specifically enumerated conditions is present or that there 

are “extraordinary circumstances” justifying the reopening of a final judgment under Rule 

60(b)(6), which contemplates “any other reason that justifies relief.” See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 

U.S. 524, 535 (2005). Here, plaintiff fails to identify any specific conditions that warrant relief, 

and her medical attachments do not show the kind of extraordinary circumstances that would 

explain the numerous delays over almost six years of litigation. Plaintiff’s motion recapitulates 

arguments that she has stated numerous times previously. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 67, 72, 73, 76, 77, 

Case 1:14-cv-00580-LJO-JDP Document 85 Filed 01/17/20 Page 2 of 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

3

80.

Altering or amending a judgment under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy, to be 

used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., 

Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for such relief “should not 

be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly 

discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling 

law.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc) (per curiam) 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). As stated above, plaintiff has identified no such 

unusual or extraordinary circumstances here.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

For the reasons stated above, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion seeking 

relief from, or alterations to, the judgment, be denied. 

The undersigned submits the findings and recommendations to the district judge presiding 

over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the 

United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 14 days of the service of the 

findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections to the findings and 

recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document should be 

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge 

will review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to seal, ECF No. 84, is granted. The clerk of court is directed to file the 

attached medical records under seal as Exhibits to the Motion at ECF No. 84.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00580-LJO-JDP Document 85 Filed 01/17/20 Page 3 of 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

4

No. 205.

Case 1:14-cv-00580-LJO-JDP Document 85 Filed 01/17/20 Page 4 of 4