Blockson v. Hutchings

D. Nevada

Blockson v. Hutchings

DecidedFebruary 23, 2022

Docket2:21-cv-00731

StatusUnknown

This text of Blockson v. Hutchings (Blockson v. Hutchings) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blockson v. Hutchings, (D. Nev. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 CHRISTOPHER LENARD BLOCKSON, Case No. 2:21-cv-00731-GMN-VCF 5 Petitioner, 6 ORDER v. 7 JERRY HOWELL, et al., 8 Respondents. 9

10 11 In this habeas corpus action, brought pro se by Christopher Lenard Blockson, the 12 respondents have filed a Motion for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal (ECF No. 41, filed 13 under seal February 4, 2022). Blockson did not respond to that motion. The documents 14 that Respondents seek to file under seal—their Exhibits 9 and 10—are pre-sentence 15 investigation reports. While there is a strong presumption in favor of public access to 16 judicial filings, and while courts prefer that the public retain access them, see Nixon v. 17 Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978), a court may seal its records if 18 a party demonstrates “compelling reasons” to do so. See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 19 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). “Compelling reasons” exist where 20 the records could be used for improper purposes. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing 21 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Under Nevada law, presentence investigation reports are 22 confidential, and are not to be made part of a public record. See NRS 176.156(5). The 23 presentence investigation reports filed by Respondents contain information that could 24 be used for improper purposes. In view of the state law, and considering the nature of 25 the information in presentence investigation reports, the Court finds that there is good 26 cause for the exhibits in question to be filed under seal. 27 /// 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Leave to File Exhibits 2 Under Seal (ECF No. 41) is GRANTED. Respondents are granted leave of court to file 3 their Exhibits 9 and 10 under seal. As those exhibits have already been filed under seal 4 (ECF Nos. 42 and 43), no further action is necessary in this regard. 5 6 DATED THIS __2_3__ day of ______F__e_b_r_u_a_r_y_ _______, 2022.

8 GLORIA M. NAVARRO 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 CHRISTOPHER LENARD BLOCKSON, Case No. 2:21-cv-00731-GMN-VCF 5 Petitioner, 6 ORDER v. 7 JERRY HOWELL, et al., 8 Respondents. 9

10 11 In this habeas corpus action, brought pro se by Christopher Lenard Blockson, the 12 respondents have filed a Motion for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal (ECF No. 41, filed 13 under seal February 4, 2022). Blockson did not respond to that motion. The documents 14 that Respondents seek to file under seal—their Exhibits 9 and 10—are pre-sentence 15 investigation reports. While there is a strong presumption in favor of public access to 16 judicial filings, and while courts prefer that the public retain access them, see Nixon v. 17 Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978), a court may seal its records if 18 a party demonstrates “compelling reasons” to do so. See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 19 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). “Compelling reasons” exist where 20 the records could be used for improper purposes. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing 21 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Under Nevada law, presentence investigation reports are 22 confidential, and are not to be made part of a public record. See NRS 176.156(5). The 23 presentence investigation reports filed by Respondents contain information that could 24 be used for improper purposes. In view of the state law, and considering the nature of 25 the information in presentence investigation reports, the Court finds that there is good 26 cause for the exhibits in question to be filed under seal. 27 /// 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Leave to File Exhibits 2 Under Seal (ECF No. 41) is GRANTED. Respondents are granted leave of court to file 3 their Exhibits 9 and 10 under seal. As those exhibits have already been filed under seal 4 (ECF Nos. 42 and 43), no further action is necessary in this regard. 5 6 DATED THIS __2_3__ day of ______F__e_b_r_u_a_r_y_ _______, 2022.

8 GLORIA M. NAVARRO 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Blockson v. Hutchings, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blockson-v-hutchings-nvd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack