Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00919-45/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 December 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request to seal a motion to compel and the attached 

exhibits. Plaintiff filed a request to seal other exhibits on December 4, 2014.

Plaintiff has moved to seal a majority of his filings in this action. However, other than stating 

that the First Amended Complaint is filed under seal, Plaintiff sets forth no explanation as to why his 

DAVID ESTRADA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

GIPSON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUESTS TO SEAL DOCUMENTS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Document 126 and 127)

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 130 Filed 12/09/14 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

filings should be sealed. Rather, he leaves the Court to read through his documents and guess what 

information would require sealing.

This is not the first time Plaintiff has failed to specify why a document should be sealed. 

However, it has become apparent to the Court that Plaintiff believes almost all of his documents 

warrant sealing.1 The increased number of requests, when combined with his failure to include any 

explanation, burdens the Court’s scarce resources. 

Accordingly, for all motions to seal, including the instant motions, Plaintiff must set forth why 

he believes that the specific document warrants sealing. Filings in cases such as this are a matter of 

public record absent compelling justification, and Plaintiff must do more than simply state that his 

filing should be sealed. United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1012 (9th Cir. 2008). Of course, 

Plaintiff need not include information that he believes should not be disclosed, but he must provide 

additional information to the Court.

Plaintiff’s requests to seal are therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Pursuant to Local 

Rule 141(e)(1), the Clerk shall return the documents to Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff has filed approximately thirteen requests to seal.

Case 1:13-cv-00919-LJO-DLB Document 130 Filed 12/09/14 Page 2 of 2