Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00011/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00011-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MALCOLM YISRAEL WRIGHT, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

SMITH, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:10-cv-00011-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

REQUEST

(Doc. 51.)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO 

SUBSTITUTE REDACTED VERSION OF 

EXHIBIT

(Doc. 50-2 at 15; Doc. 51 at 4.)

I. BACKGROUND 

Malcolm Yisrael Wright (APlaintiff@) is an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 

(1971).

On June 10, 2014, defendants Gonzales, Miller, and Smith (“Defendants”) filed a 

motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication, pursuant to Rule 56. 

(Doc. 50.) Later on the same date, Defendants filed a request to substitute one of their exhibits 

to the motion for summary judgment with a redacted version of the same exhibit. (Doc. 51.)

Case 1:10-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 53 Filed 06/11/14 Page 1 of 3
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

II. DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST

Defendants have notified the court that “Defendants . . , in an attachment to a 

declaration filed this morning, as Docket No. 50-2 did not redact the date of birth and social 

security number references.” (Request at 1.) Defendants request the court to substitute a 

redacted version of the attachment, which they have provided to the court. Defendants request 

substitution of “the attached redacted attachment four (4) to the Declaration of Shelly Shandor 

to correct this inadvertent oversight.” (Id.)

III. DISCUSSION

Ordinarily, the Clerk of Court may not alter documents once they have been filed with 

the court, and an amended pleading must be retyped and filed by the party as a new document, 

complete in itself, superceding the prior pleading. The Clerk of Court has custody of all 

electronic and paper files and records of the court, and the Local Rules prohibit the taking of 

any file, record, paper, or item belonging to the files of the court from the custody of the Clerk 

without a special order of the court. Local Rule 138(a)(2). Local Rule 220 provides that 

“[u]nless prior approval to the contrary is obtained from the Court, every pleading to which an 

amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by court order 

shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself . . . [and a]ll changed pleadings shall 

contain copies of all exhibits referred to in the changed pleading.” L.R. 220.

Here, Defendants seek to replace a one-page exhibit with a redacted version of the same 

one-page exhibit, to redact inadvertent references to an individual’s date of birth and social 

security number. Local Rule 140 requires “counsel and the Court [to] omit . . . or redact 

[certain] personal data identifiers from all pleadings, documents, and exhibits, whether filed 

electronically or on paper, unless the Court orders otherwise,” including “Social Security 

numbers” and “Dates of birth.” Local Rule 140(a)(iii),(iv). 

In such an instance, privacy concerns are best served by removing or sealing 

information on the record that violates privacy laws as soon as possible. Therefore, in this 

exceptional circumstance, the court finds good cause to authorize the Clerk of Court to 

Case 1:10-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 53 Filed 06/11/14 Page 2 of 3
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

immediately remove Defendants’ one-page exhibit from the record and replace it with a 

redacted version of the same one-page exhibit.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ Request to Substitute a Redacted Version of Exhibit 4, filed on 

June 10, 2014, is GRANTED;

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to remove the one-page Exhibit 4 from the 

Declaration of Shelly Shandor filed on June 10, 2014, (Doc. 50-2 at 15), and 

replace the page with the redacted version of the same one-page exhibit attached

to Defendants’ Request as Exhibit 4, (Doc. 51 at 4); and

3. Upon replacement by the Clerk, the redacted version of Exhibit 4 is DEEMED

properly filed and part of the court’s official record in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 53 Filed 06/11/14 Page 3 of 3