Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00411/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00411-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOAH H. O. BATTLE,

Petitioner,

v.

JOEL MARTINEZ,

Respondent.

No. 2:16-cv-0411 TLN CKD P

ORDER

Petitioner challenges his 2011 conviction and sentence in a petition brought pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. On July 29, 2016, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the motion as time-barred 

(ECF No. 16), along with a request to seal documents pursuant to Local Rule 141 (ECF No. 17).

 Respondent seeks to seal Exhibit A to the motion to dismiss, consisting of over two 

hundred pages of petitioner’s mental health records beginning in February 2013, and the motion 

itself, which describes the contents of Exhibit A. Respondent believes that petitioner’s “interest 

in privacy outweighs any legitimate public interest in the disclosure of petitioner’s mental health 

records.” (ECF No. 17.)

There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to court records. See Phillips v. 

Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “access to judicial records is 

not absolute.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The 

court has inherent power over its own records and files, and access may be denied where the court 

Case 2:16-cv-00411-TLN-CKD Document 18 Filed 08/09/16 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

2

determines that the documents may be used for improper purposes.” Nixon v. Warner Comm., 

Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

The Ninth Circuit distinguishes between dispositive and nondispositive pleadings and 

motions in terms of the showing required to seal a document. For a document filed with a 

dispositive motion, “compelling reasons” must be shown to justify sealing the document. 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–89. In contrast, for documents filed with non-dispositive motions, a 

“good cause” showing will suffice to keep the records sealed. Id. This is based on the reasoning 

that the public has less need for access to records that are merely tangentially related to the 

underlying cause of action. Id. at 1179. 

As the motion to dismiss is a dispositive filing, respondent must show “compelling reasons” 

to keep the documents sealed. The court has reviewed the attached records, which contain 

detailed medical information about petitioner. On balance, the potential harm to both parties’ 

interests outweighs the public’s right to access petitioner’s psychiatric history. Respondent has 

made an adequate showing of compelling reasons to seal these medical records. 

 Accordingly, the court will grant respondent's motion to seal both Exhibit A and the 

motion to dismiss. As respondent filed these documents instead of submitting them to the court 

for in camera review per Local Rule 141(b), the court will direct the Clerk of Court to redesignate 

these documents as filed under seal, nunc pro tunc, as of the filing date.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Respondent’s request to seal documents (ECF No. 17) is granted; and

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition and Exhibit A accompanying the motion 

(ECF Nos. 16 & 16-1) are to be filed under seal, nunc pro tunc, as of the date of filing.

Dated: August 9, 2016

2 / batt0411.seal

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00411-TLN-CKD Document 18 Filed 08/09/16 Page 2 of 2