Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01511/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01511-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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 

ALBERTINA RAMIREZ, as next friend of 

P.A., a minor, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

SYLVIA MATTHEWS BURWELL, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. 2:16-cv-1511-TLN-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner Albertina Ramirez, grandmother and next friend of P.A., a minor, has, through 

counsel, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and complaint for declaratory and injunctive 

relief seeking P.A.’s release from custody in the Yolo County Juvenile Detention Center under 

federal immigration authority. Respondents have filed a request that the entirety of their response 

to the combined petition and complaint (hereafter referred to as “petition” for the reader’s ease) 

and the 24 attached exhibits be filed under seal. Petitioner opposes the request in part. For the 

reasons that follow, the court agrees with petitioner that respondents have not met their burden of 

establishing compelling reasons to seal the entirety of the response and all associated exhibits. 

However, petitioner and respondents agree that some portions of the response and exhibits should 

be sealed and they provided compelling reasons for sealing those items. Accordingly, the request 

to seal will be granted in part and denied in part. 

Case 2:16-cv-01511-TLN-EFB Document 31 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 6
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

I. Background 

Petitioner filed this case on July 2, 2016. ECF No. 1. The case has not developed past the 

pleading stage. The following allegations1 are taken from the amended petition to provide some 

backdrop for the instant dispute over whether the response to the petition should be sealed in its 

entirety: 

P.A. is a seventeen year-old unaccompanied minor from El Salvador. P.A. came 

to this country in fear of his life after his brother was murdered in an attempt to 

escape from gang death threats and violence. P.A. crossed the U.S. Mexican 

border in June, 2014, when he was fifteen years old. 

When P.A. crossed the border near McAllen, Texas, he turned himself in to a 

Border Patrol officer because he wanted to apply for asylum. 

When P.A. was taken into detention he was interrogated by officers who 

attempted to convince him to sign a voluntary departure form. P.A. resisted and 

insisted that he wanted to apply for asylum. 

After P.A. was detained in South Texas for three days he was transferred to a 

facility in Houston for three days and was then transferred again to a processing 

facility in Arizona, where he remained for seven days. During P.A.’s detainment 

in Arizona, he was interrogated and coerced into making a false statement 

regarding events that occurred in El Salvador. Due to these coerced statements, 

P.A. was placed, and has remained in, a secure detention facility since he has been 

in federal custody. P.A. did not have the assistance of either an attorney or a 

guardian in any of these interrogations. Despite P.A.’s requests to speak with his 

family, he was at no time allowed to contact them. In fact, P.A.’s mother did not 

know P.A. was detained until he was at the processing facility in Arizona. 

Around July 2014, P.A. was transferred into the custody of Office of Refugee 

Resettlement. P.A. was first sent to Shenandoah Juvenile Center in Virginia on or 

about July 11, 2014. He was then transferred to Sandy Pines Residential 

Treatment Facility in Florida on or about October 6, 2014. On or about February 

12, 2015, P.A. was transferred back to Shenandoah Juvenile Center in Virginia. 

On or about May 27, 2015, he was transferred to Morrison Secure Facility in 

Oregon. On or about September 14, 2015, he was transferred back to Shenandoah 

Juvenile Center. For approximately the first twelve months of P.A.’s detainment 

with ORR he never saw an immigration judge. On or about October 20, 2015, he 

was transferred to Yolo County Juvenile Detention Facility in Woodland, 

California. He currently remains detained at this facility. 

From the beginning of P.A.’s detention in ORR custody, P.A.’s mother sought to 

be reunified with her son. In 2014, P.A.’s mother, who resides in Los Angeles, 

California, applied to ORR to have P.A. released to her care. She completed all 

the paperwork and home studies required for reunification. She has made 

significant efforts to demonstrate that she is capable of caring for her son, 

including participation in joint therapy sessions with P.A. while he has been in 

 1

 The court takes no position on the veracity of the allegations and provides them simply 

for context. 

Case 2:16-cv-01511-TLN-EFB Document 31 Filed 09/22/16 Page 2 of 6
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

detention, moving into a larger apartment to accommodate P.A., and working 

with community organizations to build a support system for her and P.A. She has 

also identified a school for P.A. to attend and secured counseling services to assist 

him upon his release. 

The Young Center, appointed by ORR as the child advocate for P.A., 

recommended P.A.’s release to his mother, as did the psychologists hired by ORR 

to assess P.A. 

For over 21 months, ORR failed to make any decision on P.A.’s release and kept 

him detained in secure detention centers without any decision. 

P.A. obtained pro bono counsel in November 2015, and P.A.’s counsel requested 

the right to participate in the release decision, the right to present and confront 

evidence, the right to notice of any custody review, and the right to notice of any 

release decision. ORR never responded to P.A.’s counsel’s request to present 

evidence and never responded to P.A.’s counsel’s request as to whether P.A. had 

a right to counsel in this process. 

In December 2015, P.A.’s counsel requested a copy of P.A.’s file with ORR. 

After not receiving the file, P.A.’s counsel requested his ORR file again around 

March 10, 2016. After repeated attempts to secure the ORR file, P.A.’s counsel 

asked for intervention from Rep. Zoe Lofgren’s office to obtain P.A.’s ORR file. 

The file was finally received around April 18, 2016. 

After repeated attempts to obtain a decision on P.A.’s reunification with his 

mother, P.A. also sought the assistance of Rep. Zoe Lofgren’s office to obtain 

information. In April 2016, more than a year and a half after P.A.’s mother first 

applied for his release, Respondent Carey, the ORR Director, sent P.A.’s mother 

an undated letter denying her son’s release, stating only “[y]our son poses a safety 

risk to the community.” Respondent Carey did not serve a copy of this letter on 

either P.A. or P.A.’s counsel. P.A. was never notified, nor was his counsel, of any 

right to present evidence or any notice of the custody decision-making process. 

The letter indicated that P.A.’s mother could request reconsideration of this 

decision, which she did through counsel on May 18, 2016. To date, no one from 

ORR has responded to this request for reconsideration. 

On February 17, 2106, P.A. filed an Application for Asylum and for Withholding 

of Removal with the San Francisco Asylum Office. On April 20, 2016, P.A. had 

an interview with the asylum office on his application. The interview was 

conducted inside the cell block of the Yolo County Juvenile Detention Center and 

lasted around 6 hours. P.A. did not receive a lunch break during the six hour 

asylum interview—eating only an apple for the entire interview. The bases for his 

asylum application included severe physical abuse from his father as well as 

threats from and fear of retaliation by the MS-13 gang in El Salvador. P.A. fears 

that the gang may retaliate against him since he gave information to Salvadoran 

police regarding the gang’s activities. The application still remains pending—

four months after his application was filed. 

P.A. has also tried to obtain review of his custody from the Immigration Judge, 

but has been denied that opportunity as well. On January 26, 2016, P.A.’s 

attorneys filed a Motion for a Bond Hearing with the United States Department of 

Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review in San Francisco, California, 

requesting P.A. be given a bond hearing. On February 9, 2016, the Immigration 

 

Case 2:16-cv-01511-TLN-EFB Document 31 Filed 09/22/16 Page 3 of 6
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 

4

Judge denied P.A.’s motion for a bond hearing stating the court did not have 

jurisdiction to make a bond determination. 

On March 3, 3016, P.A. filed an appeal of the decision of the Immigration Judge’s 

decision to deny a bond hearing to the Board of Immigration Appeals. On June 

28, 2016 the BIA dismissed P.A.’s appeal. 

P.A. has been in custody over two years and has not had any judicial review of his 

custody. The Immigration Court and Board of Immigration Appeals have decided 

they do not have jurisdiction to review P.A.’s custody—it is the exclusive domain 

of ORR. Yet ORR has not given P.A. or his counsel any opportunity to present or 

confront evidence in a custody review, any notice of a custody review, or any 

decision relating to P.A.’s custody. The single response that has been received 

was to P.A.’s mother in an undated letter over a year and a half after ORR 

assumed custody over P.A. 

ECF No. 5 (Amended Petition) at 7-11. Respondents have submitted to the court, concurrently 

with the instant request to seal, their responsive brief and exhibits. 

II. Applicable Law 

Local Rule 141 governs requests to seal documents. E.D. Cal. L.R. 141. That rule 

provides that documents may be sealed by order of the court upon the showing required by law. 

L.R. 141(a). It requires the party making the request to “set forth the statutory or other authority 

for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to be permitted 

access to the other documents, and all other relevant information.” L.R. 141(b). 

The “showing required by law” referred to by our Local Rule is a high one. The court 

operates under a strong presumption in favor of access to court records. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 

Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (2016). Accordingly, a party seeking to file 

something under seal must present “compelling reasons” supporting the request.2

 Id. The 

compelling reasons standard requires the court to: (1) find a compelling reason supporting sealing 

the record and (2) articulate the factual basis for the sealing the record, without relying on 

hypothesis or conjecture. Id. at 1096-97. The court must conscientiously balance the competing 

interests of the public and the party who wishes to keep the documents private. Id. at 1097. 

 2

 The court may seal materials attached to discovery motions unrelated to the merits of a 

case on a lesser showing than “compelling reasons”; in such a situation, a showing of “good 

cause” suffices. Id. at 1097. As the responsive brief and exhibits at issue in the instant request to 

seal are very much related to the merits of this action, this lesser standard is inapplicable here. 

Case 2:16-cv-01511-TLN-EFB Document 31 Filed 09/22/16 Page 4 of 6
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 

5

“What constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is ‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’” 

Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commnc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). Some examples of 

records for which there are compelling reasons to seal are: (1) records that could be used to 

gratify private spite or promote public scandal; (2) records containing libelous statements; and (3) 

records that contain business information that could be used to harm a litigant’s competitive 

standing. Id. 

III. Analysis 

The request to seal filed by respondents is notably brief (a single page). Respondents 

argue that the court should seal the entirety of their responsive brief and all 24 associated exhibits 

because the brief and exhibits “pervasively contain sensitive personal information about 

Petitioner P.A., who is a minor.” Respondents are concerned that the dissemination of the 

information by its placement in the public record may compromise P.A.’s identity and “otherwise 

be detrimental to his privacy.” 

Petitioner agrees that thirteen of the exhibits contain detailed private information about 

P.A. and should be sealed. However, petitioner argues that the responsive brief and remaining 

exhibits should not be sealed, except for some redactions. 

Having reviewed the brief and exhibits, the court agrees with the parties that exhibits B, 

C, F, G, H, I, J, K, M, O, P, T, and U pervasively contain sensitive and private information about 

P.A. and should be sealed. Any interest the public may have in the disclosure of these records in 

this case is outweighed by P.A.’s interest in the privacy of his medical records, psychiatric 

records, and behavioral history. Battle v. Martinez, No. 2:16-cv-0411 TLN CKD P, 2016 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 105203, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2016) (granting request to seal psychiatric and 

medical records); Friedman v. Adams, No. 2:13-CV-1345 JCM (CWH), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

101029 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2016) (“The need to protect sensitive medical information is a 

compelling reason to seal records.”); JSB v. Wheeler, No. 3:14-CV-0436-LRH-WGC, 2015 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 158650, *8-9 (D. Nev. Nov. 24, 2015) (sealing documents containing sensitive 

information about the plaintiff, who was a minor); A.C. v. City of Santa Clara, No. 13-cv-03276- 

///// 

Case 2:16-cv-01511-TLN-EFB Document 31 Filed 09/22/16 Page 5 of 6
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 

6

HSG, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86708, at *4-6 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2015) (finding compelling reasons 

justified sealing of medical records and juvenile court records). 

The court agrees with petitioner that respondent has not provided compelling reasons for 

sealing the entirety of the brief and remaining exhibits (A, D, E, L, N, Q, R, S, V, W, and X). As 

petitioner argues, these records can be redacted prior to filing to protect P.A.’s personal 

information, with unredacted copies filed under seal. Accordingly, the court will direct 

respondents to review these records and determine appropriate redactions to protect P.A.’s 

sensitive personal information. Respondent may then resubmit the documents to the court with a 

narrower request to seal. 

IV. Conclusion and Order 

In accordance with the above analysis, it is hereby ORDERED that respondents’ August 

1, 2016 request to seal (ECF No. 12) is granted in part and denied in part, as follows: 

1. Exhibits B, C, F, G, H, I, J, K, M, O, P, T, and U shall be filed under seal. Within 

seven (7) days, respondents shall email these exhibits in PDF format to 

approvedsealed@caed.uscourts.gov. The Clerk of Court shall file those exhibits under 

seal. Access to those documents is restricted to the court, the parties, and authorized 

court personnel. 

2. The request to seal is denied with respect to the brief and exhibits A, D, E, L, N, Q, R, 

S, V, W, and X, without prejudice. Respondent may file a new request to seal, along 

with the brief and exhibits A, D, E, L, N, Q, R, S, V, W, and X with proposed 

redactions, within 21 days of the date of this order. 

 So ordered. 

DATED: September 21, 2016. 

 

Case 2:16-cv-01511-TLN-EFB Document 31 Filed 09/22/16 Page 6 of 6