Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00223/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00223-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

JOSEPH MARTIN DANKS, 

Petitioner,

v.

RON BROOMFIELD, Warden of California 

State Prison at San Quentin, 

Respondent.

1

Case No. 1:11-cv-00223-JLT

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER’S 

REQUEST TO FILE DOCUMENTS 

UNDER SEAL

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 27, 2023, Petitioner, through counsel, the Habeas Corpus Resource Center by 

attorney Margo Hunter, filed on the public docket a Notice of Request to Seal portions of the 

sealed reporter’s transcript of state trial court proceedings dated July 7, 1992, November 10, 

1992, January 22, 1993, and February 1, 1993, (collectively the “Sealed Reporter’s 

Transcript”) relating to Petitioner’s motions to substitute counsel pursuant to People v. 

Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970). (Doc. 86.) The Notice is associated with the Court’s June 2, 

2023 order (Doc. 83) that modified case scheduling to afford counsel for Respondent, Deputy 

Attorney General Justain Riley, access to the Sealed Reporter’s Transcript while preparing 

1 Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 25(d), Ron Broomfield, Warden of San Quentin State 

Prison, shall be substituted as Respondent in place of his predecessor wardens.

Case 1:11-cv-00223-JLT Document 89 Filed 07/07/23 Page 1 of 5
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

Respondent’s answer to the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition filed in this proceeding. 

Petitioner has submitted ex parte and in camera to the Court the Sealed Reporter’s 

Transcript along with a Proposed Order and Request to Seal, as required by Eastern District of 

California Local Rule (“Local Rule”) 141.2(See Doc. 86, at 2.) Petitioner states the Sealed 

Reporter’s Transcript has not been provided to Respondent because these documents remain 

sealed in state court. (Id.)

Respondent has not opposed Petitioner’s sealing request, and the time for doing so has 

expired. Local Rule 141(c). Petitioner’s sealing request is therefore deemed unopposed.

II. BACKGROUND

In 1993, Petitioner, then serving six life sentences for six prior convictions of first 

degree murder, was convicted in Kern County Superior Court of the first degree murder of his 

cellmate and sentenced to death. (See Doc. 28, at 19-20) In 2003, Petitioner filed in the 

California Supreme Court a first petition for writ of habeas corpus. (See id. at 27.) In 2004, 

the California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence. (See id. at 

26.) That same year, the California Supreme Court denied rehearing (id.), and the United 

States Supreme Court denied certiorari (id.). In 2010, the California Supreme Court denied 

Petitioner’s first petition for writ of habeas corpus. (See id. at 30.) 

Petitioner began this federal proceeding on February 9, 2011 by filing a request for a 

stay of execution and appointment of counsel. (Doc. 1.) On February 17, 2011, the Habeas 

Corpus Resource Center was appointed as counsel to represent Petitioner. (Doc. 5.) 

On September 13, 2011, Petitioner filed in the California Supreme Court a second 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. (See Doc. 28, at 30-31.) 

On September 15, 2011, Petitioner filed herein the operative § 2254 habeas corpus 

petition. (Doc. 28.) Later that same year, this Court: (i) dismissed as premature Claim 36 

(alleging execution incompetence), (ii) stayed these federal proceedings in abeyance of state 

2 Local Rule 141(b) directs a party seeking to seal documents to electronically file a “Notice of Request to Seal 

Documents” and to e-mail a “Request to Seal Documents,” proposed order, and all documents covered by the 

request to the appropriate Judge or Magistrate Judge's proposed order e-mail box. All reference to pagination is to 

ECF system pagination unless stated otherwise.

Case 1:11-cv-00223-JLT Document 89 Filed 07/07/23 Page 2 of 5
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

exhaustion proceedings, and (iii) found the equal protection subclaims in Claims 31 and 33 to 

be unexhausted. (See Doc. 34, at 6, 10; Doc. 41, at 2.) 

On September 10, 2021, the Kern County Superior Court denied all claims in 

Petitioner’s second petition for writ of habeas corpus. (See Doc. 70, at 2.) On October 22, 

2021, the California Court of Appeal denied Petitioner’s appeal and request for a certificate of 

appealability. (See id.) On January 5, 2022, the California Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s 

petition for review. (See id.) On October 3, 2022, the United States Supreme Court denied 

Petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari. (See Doc. 73, at 2.) 

On October 18, 2022, the Court lifted its exhaustion stay. (See Doc. 74, at 1.)

On March 10, 2023, the Court ordered stricken from the § 2254 petition the 

unexhausted equal protection subclaims in Claims 31 and 33. (Doc. 81.)

III. DISCUSSION

Petitioner supports the sealing request by observing that the Sealed Reporter’s 

Transcript, portions of the sealed state record which must remain sealed in this proceeding, is 

cited in his operative § 2254 petition. 

Requests to seal documents in this district are governed by Local Rule 141, which 

provides that documents may be sealed only upon written order of the Court after a specific 

request to seal has been made. Local Rule 141(a). The request to seal shall 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 document, and all relevant information.” 

Local Rule 141(b). 

The Court observes there is a “strong presumption in favor of access to court 

records[.]” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 

2016) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

“The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent –

indeed, particularly because they are independent – to have a measure of accountability and for 

the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. 

Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 

Case 1:11-cv-00223-JLT Document 89 Filed 07/07/23 Page 3 of 5
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

A request to seal material must normally meet the high threshold of showing that 

“compelling reasons” support secrecy. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d, at 1096-97. A party 

seeking to file something under seal must present “compelling reasons” supporting the request. 

Id. The compelling reasons standard requires that the Court: (1) find a compelling reason 

supporting sealing the record, and (2) articulate the factual basis for 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; see also Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-81 (9th 

Cir. 2006). “What constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is ‘best left to the sound discretion of the 

trial court.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d, at 1097 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commnc'ns, 

Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). 

The Ninth Circuit has stated that “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the 

public's interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist, for example, when “court 

files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify 

private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” 

Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S., at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of 

records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation 

will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d, at 1179 

(citing Foltz, 331 F.3d, at 1136). 

Where the material is, at most, “tangentially related” to the merits of a case, the request 

to seal may be granted on a lesser showing of “good cause” to find prejudice or harm for each 

document sought to be protected. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d, at 1096-1102; see also 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d, at 1178-80; Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th 

Cir. 1992); Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). For example, 

in such a case, a “particularized showing” that public disclosure would cause annoyance, 

embarrassment, oppression, or an undue burden will suffice to seal non-dispositive records. 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d, at 1180; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 5.2(d), a court “may order that a filing be made under seal without redaction.”

Case 1:11-cv-00223-JLT Document 89 Filed 07/07/23 Page 4 of 5
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

Petitioner has complied with Local Rule 141. The Court has reviewed the Request to 

Seal and the Sealed Reporter’s Transcript documents sought to be sealed and finds compelling 

reasons to grant the Request. These documents contain sealed state court reporter’s transcript 

of Marsden and related proceedings including information regarding representation, the 

attorney client relationship, and attorney work product, that is privileged and confidential

under state law and by order of the California Supreme Court. (See Docs. 87 & 88.) Thus, the 

Court ORDERS: 

1. Petitioner’s Request to Lodge Documents under Seal is GRANTED. 

2. The Sealed Reporter’s Transcript dated July 7, 1992 (totaling 16 pages), 

November 10, 1992 (totaling 15 pages), January 22, 1993 (totaling 6 pages), and February 1, 

1993 (totaling 33) pages, shall be LODGED UNDER SEAL until further order of the Court, 

with SERVICE UPON ONLY COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. These documents shall 

not be publicly filed unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 

3. Petitioner’s counsel shall email the above Transcripts to 

ApprovedSealed@caed.uscourts.gov for lodging under seal in compliance with Local Rule 141 

WITHIN THREE DAYS of the date of entry of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2023 

Case 1:11-cv-00223-JLT Document 89 Filed 07/07/23 Page 5 of 5