Cruz v. Hutching

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 20, 2023
• Docket: 2:21-cv-02118
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 * * * 9 CARIM CRUZ, Case No. 2:21-cv-02118-GMN-DJA

10 Petitioner, Order Granting Extension of Time to Oppose Motion to Dismiss to 11 v. March 21, 2023 and Granting Motion to 12 File Exhibits under Seal WILLIAM HUTCHING, et al., 13 Respondents. (ECF Nos. 25, 27, 28) 14 15 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petitioner Carim Cruz moves for an extension of 16 time to oppose respondents’ motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 28.) Good cause appearing, 17 the motion is granted. 18 Respondents have moved for leave to file certain exhibits in camera and under 19 seal. (ECF No. 25.) While there is a presumption favoring public access to judicial filings 20 and documents, a party seeking to seal a judicial record may overcome the presumption 21 by demonstrating “compelling reasons” that outweigh the public policies favoring 22 disclosure. See Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); 23 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) 24 (citations omitted). In general, “compelling reasons” exist where the records may be 25 used for improper purposes. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 26 598). 27 Here, respondents ask to file Cruz’s presentence investigation report (“PSI”) and 1 state law and the disclosure of the report and statements could jeopardize Cruz’s safety 2 as well as prison security. (ECF No. 25 at 2.) The court has reviewed the PSI and the 3 victim impact statements and concludes that respondents have demonstrated 4 compelling reasons to file them under seal. However, neither the PSI nor the victim 5 impact statements appear to include information that is so sensitive that it would warrant 6 in camera filing. Accordingly, the court grants the motion in part, and the PSI and 7 statements will remain under seal. 8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s unopposed first motion for 9 extension of time to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 27) is 10 GRANTED nunc pro tunc. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s second unopposed motion for 12 extension of time to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 28) is 13 GRANTED. The deadline to file the opposition is extended to March 21, 2023. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents’ motion for leave to file exhibits in 15 camera and under seal (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED in part. The documents will remain 16 under seal. 17

18 DATED: 20 January 2023. 19 20

21 GLORIA M. NAVARRO 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27