Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00569/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00569-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWIN VALENCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. MACHADO, et al.,

 Defendants.

No. 1:24-cv-00569-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

TO SEAL THE ACTION

(ECF No. 13) 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on May 13, 2024. However, Plaintiff’s complaint is 

not signed under penalty of perjury as required by the federal rules of civil procedure and local 

rules of this Court. Therefore, on May 14, 2024, the Court issued an order striking Plaintiff’s 

unsigned complaint from the record and granting thirty days to file an amended complaint. (ECF 

No. 7.) 

After receiving an extension of time, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on June 24, 

2024, along with a separate request to seal the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

5.2, which is currently before the Court for review. (ECF Nos. 13, 14.) Plaintiff seeks to seal the 

instant case for his protection from retaliation, including physical violence by non-party prison 

Case 1:24-cv-00569-SAB Document 15 Filed 07/31/24 Page 1 of 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

2

staff at California Correctional Institution and other California prisons. (ECF No. 13 at 3.) 

I.

DISCUSSION

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’ ” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). Other than grand jury transcripts and warrant materials in the midst of a 

pre-indictment investigation, which are documents that have been “traditionally kept secret,” 

there is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to all other court records. Kamakana, 447 F.3d 

at 1178; see also Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A 

party seeking to seal a court record bears the burden of overcoming the “strong presumption in 

favor of access” by articulating “compelling reasons for doing so.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178.

The Court must “conscientiously balance” the “competing interests” of the public and the 

party seeking to seal the judicial record. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. The determination as to 

what constitutes a “compelling reason” is within the Court's “sound discretion.” Center for Auto 

Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016). Examples of compelling 

reasons include where a record might “become a vehicle for improper purposes,” such as to 

“gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade 

secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

Here, Plaintiff seeks to seal the entire court record. Plaintiff contends that, because this 

action relates to allegations regarding “green wall” correctional staff members, the entire court 

record should be sealed to preserve his safekeeping. (ECF No. 13 at 3.) Because of the “strong 

presumption in favor of access to court records,” Center for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096, and 

because Plaintiff has not articulated any specific reason, other than the general subject matter of 

the action and his alleged “safekeeping” for why the entire court record and his complaint should 

be sealed, Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178, Plaintiff’s motion to seal the entire record, including his 

complaint, shall be denied. The Court notes, however, that this ruling does not foreclose Plaintiff 

from requesting, in the future, that certain documents be filed under seal. In making such 

Case 1:24-cv-00569-SAB Document 15 Filed 07/31/24 Page 2 of 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

3

requests, Plaintiff must comply with all applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local 

Rules, including Local Rules 140 and 141. The Court’s ruling also does not foreclose Plaintiff 

from seeking a protective order in relation to such documents, as provided for under Local Rule 

141.1 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). 

II.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to seal the 

record is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00569-SAB Document 15 Filed 07/31/24 Page 3 of 3