Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01355/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01355-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jimmy Raymond Blow
Plaintiff
Bureau of Prisons
Defendant

Document Text:

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

JIMMY RAYMOND BLOW, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:07-cv-01355-AWI-GSA-PC 

 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

RENEWED MOTION TO SEAL

(Doc. 39.)

I. BACKGROUND

JimmyRaymond Blow ("Plaintiff")is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with this civil rights action filed pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on September 17, 2007. (Doc. 1.) On November

9, 2007, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 22.) On November 16, 2007, this action was

transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, and the case at this court

was closed. (Doc. 24.) 

On March 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion to seal this case. (Doc. 37.) On March 30, 2009,

the court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion, without prejudice. (Doc. 38.) On April 24, 2009,

Plaintiff renewed the motion to seal. (Doc. 39.)

///

1

Case 1:07-cv-01355-AWI-GSA Document 40 Filed 02/12/10 Page 1 of 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

II. MOTION TO SEAL

Plaintiff requests the court to seal this entire case from public view, arguing that public access

to documents in this action will enable other inmates to use the information against him to threaten his 

life. Plaintiff contends that his public case records can be reviewed at the Bureau of Prisons and also

accessed through the “Nexus-Lexus” system. Plaintiff explains that he named specific gang members 1

in his case documents, and if gangs find out he requested protective custody and named other inmates,

they will say he worked with the government and his life will be in danger. 

Based on common law and First Amendment grounds, the public normally has the right to

inspect and copy documents filed with the court. See Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc.,435 U.S. 589, 597-

98 (1978); Globe Newspaper v. Superior Court for Norfolk County, 457 U.S. 596, 603 (1982); Phillips

ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002). The court does

not seal cases from public view without good cause. When deciding whether to seal case documents,

courts should consider “the interests advanced by the parties in light of the public interest and the duty

of the courts.” Hagestad v. Tragesser,49 F.3d 1430, 1433-1434 (9th Cir. 1995). Id. at 1434 (quoting

Nixon,435 U.S. at 602) After taking all relevant factors into consideration, the district court must base

its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on

hypothesis or conjecture. Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434. 

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues that if this entire case is not placed under seal, a gang member at the prison could

gain access to his case documents at the Bureau of Prisons or on the electronic database, find a gang

member's name or discover that Plaintiff requested protective custody and, based on this information,

tell others that Plaintiff was working for the government, resulting in threats to Plaintiff's life. Such

speculation, without more facts, is not good cause to deny public access to documents. This court is

faced with similar cases on a daily basis which are maintained on the public record. The court has

already made a review of Plaintiff’s case documents for information of a nature that clearly would

LexisNexis is a popular searchable archive of content from newspapers, magazines, legal documents and other

1

printed sources. Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexus_nexis (last visited March 25, 2009).

2

Case 1:07-cv-01355-AWI-GSA Document 40 Filed 02/12/10 Page 2 of 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

require the court to maintain confidentiality, and as a result of this review, one of Plaintiff's documents

was placed under seal. Plaintiff has not given a compelling reason in his renewed motion for the court

to seal this entire case.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's renewed motion to seal this

case, filed on April 24, 2009, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 12, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:07-cv-01355-AWI-GSA Document 40 Filed 02/12/10 Page 3 of 3