Douglas Clemons v. Terry Royal, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 15, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02018
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 3 Douglas Clemons, Case No.: 2:24-cv-02018-CDS-EJY

4 Petitioner Order Granting in Part Motion to Seal and Granting Extension of Time to File Reply in 5 v. Support of Motion to Dismiss to October 28, 2025 6 Terry Royal, et al.,

7 Respondents [ECF Nos. 15, 23] 8 9 Respondents ask the Court for an extension of time to file a reply in support of their 10 motion to dismiss Douglas Clemons’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. ECF No. 23. Good 11 cause appearing, I grant the motion. 12 Respondents have also filed a motion for leave to file an exhibit in camera and under seal. 13 ECF No. 15. While there is a presumption favoring public access to judicial filings and 14 documents, see Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978), a party seeking to 15 seal a judicial record may overcome the presumption by demonstrating “compelling reasons” 16 that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure, Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 17 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). In general, “compelling reasons” exist 18 where the records may be used for improper purposes. Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). 19 Here, the respondents ask to file Clemons’ presentence investigation report (“PSI”) in camera 20 and under seal because it is confidential under state law as well as under Nevada Department of 21 Corrections regulations. ECF No. 15. The Court has reviewed the PSI and concludes that the 22 respondents have demonstrated compelling reasons to file the PSI under seal. However, the PSI 23 does not appear to include information that is so sensitive that it would pose a security threat if 24 the petitioner submitted the proper documentation to his caseworker and viewed the PSI. 25 Accordingly, the motion is granted in part, and the PSI will remain under seal. 26 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ motion for extension of time to file a 2} reply in support of the motion to dismiss [ECF No. 23] is GRANTED, nunc pro tunc. The 3|| deadline is extended to October 28, 2025. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents’ motion for leave to file its exhibit in camera and under seal is [ECF No. 15] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Clerk 6]| of Court is kindly instructed to maintain the seal on the e at ECF No. 16. 7 Dated: October 15, 2025 Lag —=—— 9 Cristina Sil 10 we States District Judge / ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26