Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_17-cv-02975/USCOURTS-azd-2_17-cv-02975-2/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 (Federal)

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

K.A., 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Kris Kline, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-17-02975-PHX-DJH 

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 

 TO THE HONORABLE DIANE J. HUMETEWA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

JUDGE: 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion “for Amendment of Court’s 

Decision.” (Doc. 36.) The Court will recommend that the Motion be granted in part, and 

denied in part. 

I. Background. 

 On August 31, 2017, Petitioner K.A., who was then confined in CoreCivic’s 

Florence Correctional Center in Florence, Arizona, but is now confined in the Essex 

County Correctional Facility in Newark, New Jersey, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) On October 3, 2017, the 

government filed a Motion seeking dismissal of Petitioner’s Arizona Petition on the 

grounds that “[Petitioner] has a duplicative petition currently pending in the District of 

New Jersey.” (Doc. 13 at 1.) 

Case 2:17-cv-02975-DJH Document 40 Filed 07/24/19 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

 On January 4, 2018, the Court issued a Report and Recommendation that the 

government’s Motion to Dismiss be granted. (Doc. 19.) On January 22, 2018, Petitioner 

filed an Objection to the R&R. (Doc. 20.) On June 22, 2018, the District Court overruled 

Petitioner’s objections, and granted the government’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 29.) 

II. Petitioner’s Motion. 

 On May 24, 2019, Petitioner filed his Motion for Amendment. (Doc. 36.)1

 Therein, 

Petitioner seeks to Amend the Court’s January 4, 2018 R&R (doc. 19) “in order to protect 

Petitioner’s identity in a related sealed/restricted-access case cited therein.” (Doc. 36 at 1.) 

Petitioner argues that the Court’s R&R “reveals Petitioner’s identity by citing to a related 

case out of New Jersey in which that New Jersey District Court required that Petitioner be 

referred to only by his initials in order to protect sensitive information therein, including 

Petitioner’s identity.” (Id. at 1-2.) 

 In support of his Motion, Petitioner references two court opinions in which the 

District Court for the District of New Jersey and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals 

considered a request from Petitioner to seal or restrict access to his information. (Id. at 2) 

(citing K.A. v. Green, CV-18-3436 (JLL), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132482 at *2 (D.N.J. 

Aug. 7, 2018) (citing “Third Circuit Docket No. 17-3640 Docket Sheet”); K.A. v. Green, 

CV-17-03542 (JLL), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32028 at *13 (D.N.J., Feb. 27, 2018)). In each 

case, the court granted Petitioner’s request in part, and ruled that Petitioner be referenced 

only by his initials, rather than by his full name. See Green, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132482, 

at *2 (“In each prior incident, the Third Circuit has granted Petitioner’s request only to the 

extent of ordering that he be referred to going forward by his initials rather than by name.”). 

III. Discussion. 

 Generally, a party must demonstrate a “compelling reason” for a court to seal or 

restrict access to a judicial record. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 504 F.3d 792, 801 (9th 

Cir. 2007) (citing Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 

 

1

 On June 4, 2019, the Motion was referred to this Court on Judge Humetewa’s Order. (Doc. 37.) 

Case 2:17-cv-02975-DJH Document 40 Filed 07/24/19 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

2006)). “This standard derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public 

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178) (alteration and internal citations omitted). 

 In this instance, Petitioner asks the Court to restrict access to his name, and redact 

it from docket records, because those docket filings may reveal his identity through citation 

to other cases in which that information has been restricted by other Courts. The Court is 

sympathetic to Petitioner’s request and recommends that his Motion be granted to the 

following extent: (1) the Court will refer to Petitioner by his initials in all filings and Orders 

henceforth; and (2) the Court will instruct the Clerk to edit the docket to refer to K.A. by 

his initials, rather than his full name, in both the case citation and list of parties. This is the 

same relief granted to Petitioner by other courts that have considered Petitioner’s requests 

to seal. 

 However, to the extent Petitioner seeks to modify previous orders from this Court, 

the Court will recommend Petitioner’s Motion be denied for two reasons. First, Petitioner’s 

Motion is untimely without excuse. Petitioner seeks to redact documents that were issued 

more than 18 months ago (doc. 19), and provides no explanation for his delay in making 

his request. What is more, the Court has reviewed the R&R in question and finds that no 

sensitive information has been exposed beyond Petitioner’s name, and a citation to the New 

Jersey case that was at issue. (Id. at 5.) 

 Second, any remedy the Court orders will not provide Petitioner with the relief he 

seeks. The fact is that the Court’s R&R (doc. 19), and the District Court’s order adopting 

that R&R (doc. 29), have been published on legal database websites for more than a year. 

To the extent Petitioner argues that he is jeopardized because his full name can lead 

individuals to his New Jersey action (doc. 36 at 4), Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. 

Petitioner filed his habeas action in this Court without seeking any restriction of access to 

his name. (Doc. 1.) Even the current pending motion – in which Petitioner discloses his 

full name three times on the final page alone – was not filed under seal. (Doc. 36 at 5.) In 

sum, Petitioner fails to provide compelling reasons for the Court to seal or restrict access 

Case 2:17-cv-02975-DJH Document 40 Filed 07/24/19 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

to the judicial record in this case.2

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Motion to Amend the Court’s Order 

(Doc. 36) be granted in part. 

 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court order the following relief: 

 1. the Court refer to Petitioner by his initials in all filings and Orders 

henceforth; and 

 2. the Court instruct the Clerk to remove any reference to Petitioner’s 

full name from the docket, including the case citation and list of parties, and substitute 

Petitioner’s initials, K.A., in its place. 

 Dated this 24th day of July, 2019. 

 

2

 The Court notes that the other courts considering Petitioner’s requests to seal the docket in those cases have similarly denied those requests. See K.A. v. Green, CV-18-3436 (JLL), 

2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132482 at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 7, 2018); K.A. v. Green, CV-17-03542 

(JLL), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32028 at *13 (D.N.J., Feb. 27, 2018) 

Honorable John Z. Boyle 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:17-cv-02975-DJH Document 40 Filed 07/24/19 Page 4 of 4