Alexis Alegria v. William Reubart, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 14, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01868
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 Alexis Alegria, Case No. 2:24-cv-01868-CDS-NJK

5 Petitioner Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion to File Exhibit Under Seal and 6 v. Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Petition 7 William Reubart, et al.,

8 Respondents [ECF Nos. 19, 21]

9 10 In this habeas corpus action, the petitioner, Alexis Alegria, who is represented by 11 appointed counsel, filed a first amended habeas petition on September 18, 2025. ECF No. 17. 12 Alegria also filed a motion for leave to file a second amended habeas petition (ECF No. 21) and a 13 motion for leave to file exhibits under seal (ECF No. 19). Respondents filed a response to the 14 motion for leave to file a second amended habeas petition (ECF No. 22), but did not respond to 15 the motion for leave to file exhibits under seal. I grant both motions. 16 In the motion for leave to file a second amended petition, Alegria states that she filed the 17 first amended petition as a protective petition, believing that the applicable limitations period 18 expired on or about September 19, 2025. ECF No. 21 at 3. Alegria states that she wishes to file a 19 second amended petition after she completes her investigation. Id. at 3–4. She requests waiver of 20 Local Rule LR 15-1(c), which generally requires a proposed amended pleading to be attached to 21 the motion for leave to file it; she explains that rule should not apply here, where the point of her 22 motion is to allow her to complete her investigation before further amending her petition. Id. at 23 4. 24 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a party may amend a pleading with leave 25 of court, and “[t]he court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Courts are to apply 26 the “policy of favoring amendments … with ‘extreme liberality.’” United States v. Webb, 655 F. 2d 977, 27 979 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Rosenberg Brothers & Co. v. Arnold, 283 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1960) (per 28 curiam)). In deciding whether to grant leave to amend a pleading, a court may consider factors 2 whether the party has previously amended his pleadings.” In re Morris, 363 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 3 2004) (quoting Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir.1995)). 4 In their response to the motion for leave to amend, the respondents argue that I should 5 deny Alegria’s motion to amend and set a deadline for Alegria to file another motion for leave to 6 amend, with the proposed second amended petition attached, instead of granting Alegria leave to 7 amend now without seeing the proposed amended petition. ECF No. 22. Respondents argue that 8 such a procedure would allow the Court to weed out procedurally futile or meritless claims on a 9 motion for leave to amend, instead of having to address such claims on a motion to dismiss or after 10 briefing of the merits of the claims. Id. I disagree. Applying the policy of favoring amendment of 11 pleadings, I will waive application of LR 15-1(c), grant Alegria leave to amend, and set a deadline 12 for the second amended petition. The parties’ arguments regarding the procedural viability and/or 13 merits of the claims in the second amended petition will be just as well, or better, addressed on a 14 motion to dismiss or after briefing of the merits of the claims. Respondents do not show bad faith 15 or undue delay on Alegria’s part; nor do the respondents show that they will be prejudiced in any 16 manner if this procedure is followed. 17 In granting leave for Alegria to file a second amended petition, or in setting or extending 18 any deadline for any amended petition, I do not intend to make any comment on, or affect in any 19 way, the operation of any statute of limitations applicable to this case. 20 In the motion for leave to file exhibits under seal, Alegria requests leave of court to file 21 under seal exhibits containing competency evaluations and other medical and mental health 22 records. ECF No. 19; see also ECF Nos. 20-1, 20-2, 20-3, 20-4 (exhibits in question, filed under seal on 23 September 18, 2025). While there is a strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial filings, 24 and while courts prefer that the public retain access them, see Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 25 U.S. 589, 597 (1978), a court may seal its records if a party demonstrates “compelling reasons” to do 26 so. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). In general, “compelling 27 reasons” exist where the records could be used for improper purposes. Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 28 1 at 598). I find that there are compelling reasons for the exhibits in question to be filed under 2 |/seal, and I will grant Alegria’s motion. 3 I therefore order that the petitioner’s motion for leave to file exhibits under seal [ECF No. 4 ||19] is GRANTED. The exhibits in question have already been filed under seal (at ECF Nos. 20-1, 5 ||20-2, 20-3, 20-4), so the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to maintain the seal. 6 I further order that the petitioner’s motion for leave to file second amended petition [ECF 7 ||No. 21] is GRANTED. Petitioner will have until and including December 19, 2025, to file a second 8 ||amended habeas petition. In all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the Q |lorder entered November 27, 2024 (ECF No. 7) remains in effe: “| 10 Dated: October 14, 2025 J)

12 Cristina i —=@<—<—o Unit dAtates District Judge 13 / / / 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28