2015 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of A

ppe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

9-23-2015 

# Leslie K el l y v . C it y of P hi l a del phi a

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2015

Thi s S e pt e mbe r i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of A

ppe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2015 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" L e sl ie Ke l ly v

. C it y of P hi l a de lp hi a " (2015). 2015 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1023. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2015/1023CLD

- 324 & 325 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 15

- 1885

___________ LESLIE ANN KELLY,

Appellant

v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; BRENDA FRASER, Esq.; UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; HALL

- MERCER CRISIS RESPONSE CTR; THOS. KELLY; PHYLLIS KELLY; THE PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2

- 03

- cv - 03565 ) Distric t Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg

_____ _______________________________

___________ No. 15

- 1886

___________ LESLIE ANN KELLY,

Appellant

v. SHOKO NIOKA

____________________________________2 On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2

- 03

- cv - 05939) District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pur suant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 September 3, 2015 Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

( F iled : September 23, 2015 )

_________ OPINION *

_________ PER CURIAM Leslie Ann Kelly appeals the District Court’s order denyi ng her motions to seal her District Court records . For the reasons below, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. In June 2003, Kelly filed a civil rights complaint in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the C ity of Philadelphia and other defendants which was docketed at Civ. No. 03

- cv - 03565 . The District Court dismi ssed the complaint as frivolous, and we dismissed her appeal as frivolous. See C.A. No. 03

- 3019. In October 2003, Kelly filed a complaint agains t Shoko Nioka which was docketed at Civ. No. 03

- cv - 05939. The District Court also dismissed this complaint as frivolous.

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.3

Kelly did not file an appeal. In March 2015, Kelly filed a motion to seal both case s . The District Court denied the motion, and Kel ly filed a notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the District Court’s order. In re Newark Morning Ledger Co. , 260 F.3d 217, 220 (3d Cir. 2001). There is a presumption that the public should have access to judicial recor ds. In re Cendant Corp. , 260 F.3d 183, 19 2 (3d Cir. 2001). In order to have part of a record sealed, a party must meet the heavy burden of showing that the material is the sort that courts would protect and the party would have a “ clear ly defined and ser ious injury ” if there w ere disclosure. Miller v. Ind

. Hosp. , 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). A n even heavier burden is on those who wish to seal an entire record. Id. In her motion to seal, Kelly appeared to argue that she wanted to prevent her family members from becoming involved in her business

. She did not explain what material in her District Court pleadings need ed protection or allege any “ clearly defined and serious injury.” In her notice of appeal, she asserted that she s ubmitted confidential research as exhibits which she believes recently may have been plagiarized. However, she does not describe this research or submit proof of any plagiarism. Her pleadings on appeal do not address the District Court’s order and inste ad contain irrelevant, rambling allegations that she is entitled to inheritances, restitution, and whistleblowing rewards , and that people are taking her money and property. She does suggest that a gag order would be need ed if we awarded her money and pro perty so that those forced to pay her would not know the money was going to her and would not4

retaliate against her. Because we are not awarding Kelly any such money or property, we need not address whether a gag order as to any award is needed. Kelly ha s not come close to meeting the heavy burden required to seal her District Court pleadings. “Broad allegations of harm, bereft of specific examples or articulated reasoning, are insufficient.” In re Cendant Corp. , 260 F.3d at 194. Summary action is ap propriate if there is no substantial question presented in the appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit
I.O.P. 10. 6. Kelly’s motions are denied.