Arechiga v. Archambeault

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 22, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00600
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 Erik Mercado Arechiga, Case No.: 2:23-cv-00600-CDS-VCF

5 Petitioner

6 v. Order Deferring Ruling on Verified Petition for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice 7 Gregory J. Archambeault, et al., [ECF No. 9] 8 Respondents

9 10 After this civil-rights petition for a writ of habeas corpus was transferred from the 11 Southern District of California (ECF No. 7), counsel filed a verified petition to practice pro hac 12 vice and a designation of local counsel on behalf of petitioner Erik Mercado Arechiga. ECF No. 9. 13 For the reasons described herein, I defer ruling on the verified petition. 14 I. The petition does not comply with the local rules. 15 Under this district’s local rules, a pro hac vice petition must include a “certification 16 issued within six months before the date of filing of the verified petition [showing] that the 17 applicant’s membership is in good standing from the state bar or from the clerk of court of the 18 supreme court or highest admitting court of every state, territory, or insular possession of the 19 United States in which the applicant has been admitted to practice law.” LR IA 11-2(b)(3). 20 While counsel provided certificates of good standing from California, the Ninth Circuit Court of 21 Appeals, and Florida, the petitioner indicates that certificates of good standing from Iowa and 22 the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico were “requested, but not yet received.” 23 ECF No. 9 at 6. But proof of admission to practice in federal courts is not necessary. However, if 24 counsel is admitted to practice in the states of Iowa and New Mexico, then good-standing 25 certificates from those states are required. Counsel must re-file an amended petition including 26 the missing certificates as noted above. 1 II. The petition fails to include the consent of designee Melissa Corral. 2 The verified petition indicates that petitioner Arechiga appoints Michael Kagan and 3 Melissa Corral as his designated resident Nevada counsel in this case (ECF No. 9 at 4, 5), but it 4 fails to provide Corral’s signed consent of designee. All local counsel listed on the petition must 5 sign the consent of designee and provide their bar number and email address. 6 III. The petition was filed under seal, but no motion seeking leave to seal the document 7 accompanied it. 8 Local Rule 10-5(a) requires that “[u]nless otherwise permitted by statute, rule, or prior 9 court order, papers filed with the court under seal must be accompanied by a motion for leave to 10 file those documents under seal.” LR IA 10-5. “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general 11 right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and 12 documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). There is a “strong 13 presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 14 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, “[a] party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the 15 burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” 16 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). “Under this stringent 17 standard, a court may seal records only when it finds ‘a compelling reason and articulate[s] the 18 factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 19 Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). 20 Ultimately, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed 21 only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101–02. 22 Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of 23 “good cause.” Id. at 1097. However, after a cursory review of the petition there appears to be no 24 compelling reason, or even the lower standard of good cause, to file the document under seal. If 25 compelling reasons do exist for filing the petition under seal, counsel is advised to follow the 26 local rules and submit the requisite motion seeking leave to file the amended petition under seal. 1 If not, counsel must file the amended petition not under seal. 2 Once all of the aforementioned issues are addressed, an amended petition must be re- 3 filed using the “Notice of Corrected Image/Document” event to link it to the existing filing (ECF 4 No. 9). 5 III. Conclusion 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ruling on the application for permission to 7 practice pro hac vice by Niels W. Frenzen and designation of local counsel Michael Kagan and 8 Melissa Corral [ECF No. 9] is DEFERRED. Failure to amend the filing by June 16, 2023, will 9 result in denial of the petition. 10 DATED: May 22, 2023 11 12 ______________________________________ Cristina D. Silva 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26