Grimes v. Williams

Opinion

BENNETT GRIMES, Case No. 2:19-cv-00663-GMN-EJY Petitioner, ORDER v. BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al., Respondents. Petitioner has filed a motion to grant petitioner's writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 16), and respondents have filed an opposition (ECF No. 28). Petitioner argues that respondents did not file an answer or other response to his petition within the allotted time. However, the court had extended the time to file an answer or other response to February 3, 2020 (ECF No. 15), and respondents filed their answer on that date (ECF No. 29). The court thus denies petitioner's motion. Respondents have filed a motion for leave to file document under seal (ECF No. 27). The document in question is the state-court pre-sentence investigation report. The court agrees with respondents that the pre-sentence investigation report contains sensitive, confidential information, and respondents have demonstrated compelling reasons to prevent public access. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). The court grants respondents motion. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that petitioner's motion to grant petitioner's writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 16) is DENIED. IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that respondents' motion for leave to file document under seal (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED.

DATED: February 3, 2020

______________________________ GLORIA M. NAVARRO United States District Judge