Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06331/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06331-5/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

SCOTT STEARNS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLORES, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 00-6331 AWI LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL (Docs. 314, 216.) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

RETURN LODGED DOCUMENTS TO

PLAINTIFF 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL

(Doc. 319.) 

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

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On August 30, 2005, the District Court adopted this Court’s recommendation that the

Motion for Summary Judgment be granted with respect to Plaintiff’s Due Process claim and that

the case proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim. Following that disposition, Plaintiff

filed a Notice of Appeal. Currently, the appeal is pending before the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff also

filed two Motions to file documents under seal and also filed a Motion to Compel discovery. 

With regard to Plaintiff’s Motions to file documents under seal. It appears that Plaintiff

seeks to file his Declaration under seal so that the public cannot view the documents. However,

Plaintiff does not state the purpose or the need for these declarations to be filed under seal. In

addition, Plaintiff did not serve the opposing party with the Motion or the documents to be

lodged under seal. Finally, a review of the declaration reveals that the matters contained do not

concern the Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim at issue in this case. Accordingly, the

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 321 Filed 09/26/05 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

Motion to file the documents under seal will be DENIED and the Clerk of Court DIRECTED to

return the lodged documents to Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Compel Discovery on September 15, 2005. However,

discovery has not yet been opened by Court order as the Defendants have yet to file an Answer. 

Given Plaintiff’s pending interlocutory appeal, the Court will not require Defendants to file an

Answer until after Plaintiff’s appeal is resolved. Only after an Answer is filed will the Court

issue an Order opening discovery. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is therefore, premature. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motions to file Documents under Seal are DENIED; 

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to return the lodged documents to Plaintiff;

3. The Motion to Compel is DENIED as premature. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06331-DLB Document 321 Filed 09/26/05 Page 2 of 2