Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919-41/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 7, 2013. Pursuant to 

the Court’s screening order and Plaintiff’s notice of willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims, 

this action is proceeding against (1) Defendants Gipson and Espinosa for retaliation in violation of the 

First Amendment; and (2) Defendants Gipson, Espinosa, Lambert and Cavazos for violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. 

The action is currently in discovery.

On November 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request that his motion seeking “court ordered 

telephone access which is protected from monitoring” be filed under seal. 

Filings in cases such as this are a matter of public record absent compelling justification. 

United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1012 (9th Cir. 2008). In this action, the original complaint 

DAVID ESTRADA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

GIPSON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13cv00919 DLB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENT

(Document 113)

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 116 Filed 11/20/14 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

and the First Amended Complaint are sealed. Numerous additional filings that set forth allegations in 

the First Amended Complaint and/or contain names of specific inmates have also been sealed.

Plaintiff’s current motion, however, does not refer to his gang-related allegations in the FAC 

and does not name any specific inmates and/or individuals. Instead, the motion relates to Plaintiff’s 

general fears of retaliation against his family. As there is no compelling justification to seal his 

motion, his request to seal is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 116 Filed 11/20/14 Page 2 of 2