Opinion
3:20-cv-1936-JAH-LL
11-12-2021
DANIEL DORADO, CDCR #BN-7728, Plaintiff, v. CATHERINE CRUMB, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DOCUMENTS TO BE PLACED IN CLOSED FILE AND GRANTING MOTION FOR CONFIRMATION OF COURT'S ORDER [ECF No. 33]
Hon. John A. Houston United States District Judge
I. Procedural History
Daniel Dorado, (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison located in Coalinga, California is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. On September 24, 2021, this Court DISMISSED Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint as frivolous, for failing to state a claim, and for seeking money damages against immune defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. (ECF No. 33.) Because the Court found that providing leave to amend would be futile, judgment was entered and the file was closed. (See Id. at 9-10.)
On October 19, 2021, Plaintiff has filed a document entitled “Request for Documents to be placed in closed file, ” “Confirmation of Judge's Order, ” and a “Request for Clarification.” (ECF No. 36.)
II. Motion to Place Documents in Closed File
The Court construes Plaintiff's request as one to place documents under seal. “Courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). The party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public access. Id. The party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79. Plaintiff's request is devoid of specific reasons or any specific facts that would meet his burden to show compelling reasons that outweigh the public policy favoring disclosure of court records. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to “place documents in a closed file” is DENIED.
III. Motion for “Confirmation of Judge's Order” and “Clarification”
A portion of Plaintiff's request includes which could be construed as a request for legal advice from the Court which the Court cannot provide. Plaintiff also seeks clarification that this matter was dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a copy of the Court's docket which indicates that the matter was dismissed without prejudice. (See ECF No. 34.) Any further action Plaintiff seeks to file will be filed as a separate action and this matter will not be reopened. In addition, Plaintiff is cautioned that any further action he files while incarcerated will be subjected to the required sua sponte screening process required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2) and Section 1915A.
IV. Conclusion and Orders
For the reasons explained, the Court:
(1) DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for documents to be placed in closed file (ECF No. 36); and
(2) GRANTS in part, and DENIES in part, Plaintiffs Motion for Confirmation and Clarification of the Court's September 24, 2021 Order. The Clerk of Court is directed mail Plaintiff a copy of the Court's docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.