Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01507/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01507-1/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Homer Ray Roseberry, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-15-1507-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

DEATH PENALTY CASE 

 Before the Court is Respondents’ motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order 

granting Roseberry’s request to file his amended habeas petition under seal. (Doc. 33.) 

Also before the Court is Roseberry’s motion to seal his response to the motion for 

reconsideration. (Doc. 35.) 

 A court has inherent power to seal documents in appropriate circumstances. 

United States v. Mann, 829 F.2d 849, 853 (9th Cir. 1987). There is a strong presumption 

in favor of access to court records, but the right of access is not absolute and may be 

overridden given sufficiently compelling reasons. Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. 

Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). 

 Roseberry contends that his petition should be sealed because it contains 

references to materials that remain sealed in state court. (Doc. 29.) Respondents argue 

that Roseberry’s petition merely cites or refers to the sealed materials and therefore does 

not violate the state court’s order. (Doc. 37 at 2.) They also assert that the references to 

sealed documents occur in only four claims, which, they suggest in the alternative, could 

remain sealed if the Court does not unseal the entire petition. (Doc. 33 at 2.) Roseberry 

Case 2:15-cv-01507-NVW Document 40 Filed 09/15/16 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 

counters that the references to sealed documents are incorporated throughout the entire 

petition. (Doc. 36 at 5–7.) 

 The Court finds that Roseberry has not shown sufficiently compelling reasons to 

seal either his habeas petition or his response to the motion for reconsideration. 

Roseberry does not cite any harm that would result from unsealing the petition. In fact, he 

“does not desire the concealing of the documents at issue” and moved twice in state 

court, unsuccessfully, for the documents to be unsealed. (Doc. 36 at 9.) 

 In addition, as Respondents argues, it is not clear that Roseberry’s filings in this 

Court violate the state court’s order sealing the documents. Roseberry’s citations to the 

sealed material in his habeas petition do not reveal the contents of the documents. (See

Doc. 32 at 25, 67–68, 69, 78, 151, 183.) References to the material in Roseberry’s 

response outline but do not detail the contents of the sealed documents or reveal 

confidential or privileged matters. (Doc. 36 at 3–6.) 

 Accordingly, because Roseberry has not met his burden of showing compelling 

reasons for his sealing requests, 

IT IS ORDERED granting Respondents’ motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 33.) 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Court’s order granting Roseberry’s 

motion to file his amended habeas petition under seal. (Doc. 31.) The Clerk of Court is 

directed to unseal Roseberry’s amended petition. (Doc. 32.) 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Roseberry’s motion to seal his response 

to Respondents’ motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 35.) 

 Dated this 15th day of September, 2016. 

Neil V. Wake

Senior United States District 

Judge

Case 2:15-cv-01507-NVW Document 40 Filed 09/15/16 Page 2 of 2