Carlson Gray Swafford v. Richard Evangelista, Esq., in His Official and Individual Capacities; Kyle Flemming, in His Official and Individual Capacities; and Gordon Rhea, Esq., In His Official and Individual Capacities

• Court: District Court, Virgin Islands
• Decided: April 16, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00038
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX ║ CARLSON GRAY SWAFFORD, ║ ║ Plaintiff, ║ 1:25-cv-00038-RAM-EAH v. ║ ║ RICHARD EVANGELISTA, ESQ., in ║ His Official and Individual ║ Capacities; KYLE FLEMMING, in ║ His Official and Individual ║ Capacities; and GORDON RHEA, ESQ., ║ In His Official and Individual ║ Capacities, ║ Defendants. ║ ________________________________________________ ║ TO: Carlson Gray Swafford, Pro Se

ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the “Motion to Seal IFP and Remote Participation Related Financial Records Pursuant to Local Rule and Common Law Right of Privacy” (“Motion to Seal”), filed on March 31, 2026 by Plaintiff Carlson Gray Swafford, 1 appearing pro se. Dkt. No. 24. Mr. Swafford asks the Court to seal his personal financial records that he submitted in connection with his In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) Motions and Motion for Remote Participation filings (Dkt. No. 2, Dkt. No. 7-1 through 7-15, Dkt. No. 8, Dkt. Nos. 17-2 through 17-5, and exhibits filed in support of his Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying IFP Status, Dkt. Nos. 29-1 through 29-5. In the Motion to Seal, Mr. Swafford argues that the “common law right of access to judicial records is not absolute,” and courts in the Third Circuit weigh the public’s interest in 1

Mr. Swafford has filed two Motions to Appear In Forma Pauperis, Dkt. Nos. 2, 7, that the Swafford v. Evangelista 1:25-cv-00038-RAM-EAH Order Page 2

access against a party’s interest in privacy. Dkt. No. 24 at 2. He posits that, when documents contain sensitive personal financial information submitted for a threshold procedural determination, rather than a substantive mer.i tIsd .adjudication, the privacy interest is at its highest and the public interest is at its lowest The documents he wishes to seal contain bank balances, credit card statements, mortgage records, a household budget, spousal income, familial loan information, education references, and a loIgd . of over 180 job applications—submitted solely to establish his eligibility for IFP status. D oMer v. S. wMaefgfolersds ,adds that “[c]ourts routinely seal IFP-related financial submissions,” citing 654 F.3d 404, 408 (3d Cir. 2011). He submits that his “detailed financial records” go “far beyond what any litigant would ordinarily place on a public docket,” and were “compeIldle. d” by this Court’s “repeated demands for increasingly granular financial documentation.” Mr. Swafford adds that the documents, filed on the public docket, are accessible to anyone including the unserved Defendants, who could review his complete financial picture, employment history, job search strategy, and other matters, thereby obtaining information that ordinarily would be gleaned only Itdh.rough formal discovery subject to protective orders and reciprocal disclosure obligations. at 3. This “asymmetry” was created through the IFP process, and sealing the records would “restore the balance tIhda. t would ordinarily exist prior to service of process or the commencement of discovery.” Mr. Swafford asserts that he does not seek to seal Court Orders or documents bearing on the merits of the underlying

claims but only his rIadw. financial records and personal data submitted in connection with the Swafford v. Evangelista 1:25-cv-00038-RAM-EAH Order Page 3 DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standards Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, entitled “Privacy Protection for Filings Made with the Court,” governs redaction and sealing. It provides, in pertinent part, that: Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or paper filing with the court that contains an individual’s social-security number, taxpayer-identification number, or birth date, the name of an individual known to be a minor, or a financ ial-account number, a party or nonparty making the filing may include only: (1) The last four digits of the social-security number and taxpayer- identification number; (2) The year of the individual’s birth; (3)The minor’s initials; and (4)The last four digits of the financial-account number.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). Rule 5.2(d) provides that the court “may order that a filing be made under seal without redaction.” Rule 5.2(h) provides that “a person waives the protection of Rule 5.2(a) as to the person’s own information by filing it without redaction and not under seal.” Long-established case law emphasizes that “the public right of access Mtoin eju Sdaifceitayl pArpopclieaendciensg Cs oa.n vd. Nre. cRoirvders iIsn isn. Cteog.ral and essential to the integrity of the judiciary.” Bank of Am. Nat’l Tr. & Sav. Ass’n v. Hotel, 7R3it.t Fen. Shuopupse. 3Adss 5o4cs4., 557-58 (W.D. Pa. 2014) (citing , 800 F.2d 3 3Id9., 343 (3d Cir. 1986)).The right is “pervasive” and “serves numerous salutary functions.” District courts must “be sensitive to the rights of the pubIdlic in determiningL weuhceathdeiar, aInncy. vp.a Arptipcluieladr Edxotrcuusmioenn tT e. c. h. sis., Swafford v. Evangelista 1:25-cv-00038-RAM-EAH Order Page 4

court procIdeedings; it also encompasses the right of the public to inspect and copy judicial records.” . at 559 (citation modified). A party seeking to seal any part of a judicial record “bears the heavy burden of showing that the material is the kind of information that courts will protect and tIhdat disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closur eI.d”. . (citation modified). In sum, there is a “strong presumption of openness” in such filings. at 558. Moreover, redactions are preferable to sealingS eeen Htiarelm daonc uAmldeunbtis P broevcaiduesnet i&t hPaesn sleiosns oFfu annd si mLtpda. cvt. Toenv tah Peh oapremnsn. eInssd uosf .j Lutddi.c,ial proceedings. No. 20-cv-04660, 2023 WL 1100995, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 30, 2023) (finding that proposed redactions that are limited in scope are preferable to wholesale sealing). “Therefore, where possibDleel, Npearroti ve.s N sChOo uFlidn .p Sryosp., oIsnec .,redactions, rather than placing a whole document under seal.” No. 21-cv-04823, 2021 WIIL. 2375A8p9p2l,i acta *ti2o (nE .D. Pa. June 10, 2021).

The Court notes that Mr. Swafford’s initial IFP motion, Dkt. No. 2, contained a dearth of information concerning Mr. Swafford’s financial situation, which caused the Court to deny the motion without prejudice because it could not ascertain whether he qualified for IFP status, Dkt. No. 5. In his December 22, 2025 refiled IFP motion, Mr. Swafford filled out the IFP application more fulsomely and submitted numerous supporting documents to support

his application—including bank, credit card, and mortgage statements, a tax return, utility Swafford v. Evangelista 1:25-cv-00038-RAM-EAH Order Page 5

for jobs. Dkt. Nos. 7, 7-1 through 7-15. In the documents with sensitive information such as account or social security numbers, either the entity provided only a partial account number or Mr. Swafford appropriately redacted all or part of the account number or other personal identification numbers/information. These redactions complied with Rule 5.2, and the Court was able to make an assessment concerning whether he qualified for IFP status. As to the merits of Bthaeh rM vo. Mtioanri nto Seal, ‘“Courts typically treat IFP applications as matters of public record.S”’a i v. ABDI , No. 23-cv-376, 2023 WL 3088296, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2023) (qseueo tailnsgo Tater-Alexa, nNdoe.r 1 v7. -Acvm-e1r9j4an1, 2018 WL 9781844, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 23, 2018)); , No. 1:08-cv-00372, 2008 WL 961234, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2008) (“An application to proceed [IFP] is not within the narrow range of matters, such as records of grand jury proceedings, traditionally sealed because of important policy reasons.”). Sampath 2 v. ConcuTrhree nCto Turetc hfosu. Cnodr opnly one case in this Circuit that has addressed the issue. In ., No. 03-cv-264, 2008 WL 11511504 (W.D. Pa. May 14, 2008), the district court considered a party’s motion to seal his IFP application. While that court had seen “a constant stream of applications for IFP status,” it could not recall “ever ordIedr.ing that a supporting affidavit be filed under seal or, indeed, having seen such an order.” at *1. It 2 Doe v. Megle ss Doe Mr. Swafford’s statement that “courts routinely seal IFP-related financial submissions,” Dkt. No. 24 at 2, cites , 654 F.3d 404, 408 (3d Cir. 2011) Iidn. support. concerned the issue of whether a plaintiff could proceed under a pseudonym and required the litigant Swafford v. Evangelista 1:25-cv-00038-RAM-EAH Order Page 6 Tater-Alexander

approvingly cited the reasoning in , 2008 WL 961234, at *1-3, which held that records concerning IFP applications “are judicial records subject to public access since IFP applications involve a statutorily based exercise of the judicial function and the public has an interest in the proper exercise of such function, and that there are no special indicia of privacy in the kinds of informSaamtiopnat dhisclosed in a typical IFP affidavit that would warrant filing the affidavit under seal.” , 2008 WL 1151504, at *1 (citation modified). The Court agrees with this reasoning. As the Court wrote in its Orders denying Mr. Swafford’s IFP applJiocahtniosonns , v“.a pCpitryo voifn Pg hai lmaotion to proceed without paying fees is within a court’s discretion. ., 589 F. Appx 419, 429 (3d Cir. 2015). When exercising that discretioIdn., a court “must be rigSowroauffso r. d. .v t. oE veannsguerleis tthaat the treasury is not unduly imposed upon.” (citation modified).” , 1:25-cv-0038. (D.V.I. Mar. 11, 2026) (Dkt. No. 20). Thus, the public has a right to know that courts, acting in this circumstance as stewards of the pbuenbelifcit fisc, are exercising their discretion properly in either granting or denying persons the of proceeding in forma pauperis. In such a situation, “the public right of access to judicial proceedings and records”—wMhiniceh S a“ifse tiyn Atepgprlaial nacneds Cesos.ential to the integrity of the judiciary”—is a paramount concern. , 73. F. Supp. 3d at 557-58. Moreover, even if a case could be made that the information contained within IFP affidavits (and other documents cited in the motion) might be protected, Mr. Swafford has

nIno tr esh Coewnnd atnhta tC “odrips.c,losure [would] work a clearly defined and serious injury” against him. Swafford v. Evangelista 1:25-cv-00038-RAM-EAH Order Page 7 Id.

allegations of harm, bereft of specific examples or articulated reasoning, are insufficient.” Here, Mr. Swafford has not carried his heavy burden to override the common law right of access. He provides no support for his statement that his financial records “go far beyond what any litigant would ordinarily place on the docket”; even so, this statement does not show that he suffered injury. His position that his financial records “create asymmetrical prejudice” such that the Defendants (who have not yet been served because his IFP status is not resolved) would gain some litigation advantage without having to obtain this iCnefnodramnattion through discovery is merely a general concern and insufficient to show injury. , 283 F.3d at 194. Courts haveS efoeu, en.dg. thGautp gtaen ve. rDails pcorvivearc Bya cnokncerns are insufficient to demonstrate good cause for sealing. , , No. 21-cv-00648, 2021 WL 5045069, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2021) (denying request to seal IFP application where plaintiff claimed fiWnaimncbiearl liyn vfo. rEmxpaetrioiann w Inafso “. sSeonlss.itive information and [he does] not want the public to see it”); , No. 18-cv-06058, 2021 WL 1146277, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2021) (“general concerns over disclosure of fSinAaIn vc.i aDle spt'att uofs Hhaovmee blaenedn hSeecld. insufficient to overcome the presumption of peuxb plaicr taeccess.); , 149 F. Supp. 3d 99, 128 (D.D.C. 2015) (denying application to file affidavit in support of IFP status under seal where plaintiff made “unsupported assertion of an unqualified interest in privacy” and “general assertion that the affidavits might ‘disclose embarrassing and potentially Shaairmful information, such as an affiant's family situation, disability, [or]

dependents’ ”); , 2018 WL 9781844, at *4 (denying motion to seal IFP application where Swafford v. Evangelista 1:25-cv-00038-RAM-EAH Order Page 8

plaintiff “vaguely objects to the possibility of some type of harm, and generally objects to the inclusion of information required by [thCeO INFCPL aUpSpIlOicNation] on the public record”). ORDERED DENIED. Accordingly, it is hereby that the Motion to Seal, Dkt. No. 24, is The Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this Order to Mr. Swafford by certified mail, return receipt requested. ENTER: Dated: April 16, 2026 /s/ Emile A. Henderson III EMILE A. HENDERSON III U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE