Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919-42/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

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

Plaintiff David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 7, 2013. Pursuant to 

the Court’s screening order and Plaintiff’s notice of willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims, 

this action is proceeding against (1) Defendants Gipson and Espinosa for retaliation in violation of the 

First Amendment; and (2) Defendants Gipson, Espinosa, Lambert and Cavazos for violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. 

The action is currently in discovery.

On November 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request that his motion to compel Defendants Gipson 

and Cavazos to provide further responses to interrogatories be filed under seal. 

Filings in cases such as this are a matter of public record absent compelling justification. 

United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1012 (9th Cir. 2008). In this action, the original complaint 

DAVID ESTRADA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

GIPSON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13cv00919 DLB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENT

(Document 121)

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 123 Filed 12/01/14 Page 1 of 2
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

and the First Amended Complaint are sealed. Numerous additional filings that set forth allegations in 

the First Amended Complaint and/or contain names of specific inmates have also been sealed.

The Court has reviewed the motion to compel and finds that it does not contain specific, 

sensitive information that would warrant sealing. Accordingly, his request is DENIED.

The Court notes that Plaintiff also submitted a motion to compel related to other parties, and in 

the caption, he requests that the document be filed under seal. Plaintiff did not, however, submit a 

motion to seal the document. In any event, the Court has reviewed the motion and it does not warrant 

sealing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 123 Filed 12/01/14 Page 2 of 2