Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00399/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00399-15/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

STEWART MANAGO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVEY, et al., 

Defendants.

No. 1:16-cv-00399 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO SEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Document 41)

Plaintiff Stewart Manago (“Plaintiff”), a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on March 24, 2016. The action is proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Davey, Sexton, Vander Poel, 

Maxfield, Valdez, Acevedo and Razo. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants retained him 

in the SHU because of his grievances. The Court directed the United States Marshal to serve 

Defendants on June 3, 2016. There is no indication that any Defendants have been served at this 

time.

On July 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a “protective order not to disclose” his new 

address to the public. The Court construes this as a motion to seal.

Courts have long recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and 

documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Comm’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 

589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 

Case 1:16-cv-00399-DAD-GSA Document 43 Filed 07/13/16 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

‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting 

point.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 

2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.2003)). In 

order to overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must 

articulate justifications for sealing that outweigh the historical right of access and the public 

policies favoring disclosure. See id. at 1178-79.

Although Plaintiff requests that his address be protected from public view, he does not 

explain the reasons behind his request. Without such information, the Court cannot rule on his 

motion. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling with the 

required information.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00399-DAD-GSA Document 43 Filed 07/13/16 Page 2 of 2