Opinion
CV-21-01529-PHX-MTL
10-04-2022
Fabio Evelio Gomez, Petitioner, v. David Shinn, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
DEATH PENALTY CASE
Michael T. Liburdi, United States District Judge.
On September 27, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part Petitioner Fabio Evelio Gomez's Motion to Seal Unredacted Petition. (Doc. 40.) In doing so, the Court ordered the Clerk of Court to file Gomez's lodged, proposed unredacted petition (Doc. 35, sealed) under seal and ordered Gomez to lodge a new redacted petition in conformance with the Order. (Doc. 40 at 5.) The Clerk filed the unredacted petition under seal (Doc. 41, sealed), and Gomez lodged a new proposed redacted petition (Doc. 43). Gomez also lodged, under seal, another version of his unredacted petition for the Court, highlighting the newly unredacted (and omitting the remaining redacted) parts of the new proposed redacted petition. (Doc. 44, sealed.)
The Court has compared the filed unredacted petition (Doc. 41, sealed) with the newly lodged proposed redacted and unredacted petitions (Doc. 43; Doc. 44, sealed). It appears that two parts of the new proposed redacted petition should be unredacted because the content of those parts were published in unsealed transcripts in the trial court. (See Doc. 40 at 4.) The content of the first sentence on page 104, line 1 through most of line 2, is found in an unsealed state-court transcript, R.T. 9/9/10 at 77-79. (Doc. 40 at 4; Doc. 43 at 104, ls. 1-2.) And the content on page 106, lines 3 and 4, is found in an unsealed statecourt transcript, R.T. 9/13/10 at 9. (Doc. 40 at 4; Doc. 43 at 106, ls. 3-4.)
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, within five business days of the filing date of this Order, Gomez must withdraw his new lodged, proposed redacted petition (Doc. 43), and lodge a revised redacted petition in conformance with this and the Court's prior Order, or file a notice explaining why the two portions described above should be redacted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Doc. 44 remain lodged and sealed. The Court will take no further action on Doc. 44, as it was lodged to highlight the differences between Docs. 41 and 43 and not as an operative petition.