(HC) (DP) Espinoza v. Ornoski

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTONIO ESPINOZA, No. 2:94-cv-1665 KJM DB 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARDEN, San Quentin State Prison, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Two motions are pending. First, petitioner moves for an 19 extension of time to file the joint statement ordered on January 24. Petitioner explains that his 20 counsel is waiting for evidence from petitioner’s co-defendant’s case in order to best assess the 21 status of the present case. Respondent does not oppose the extension of time. Petitioner 22 demonstrates good cause for additional time. 23 The second motion is petitioner’s request to file a motion under seal. The subject motion 24 involves petitioner’s confidential medical records.1 Therefore, this court finds sealing 25 appropriate. See James v. Servicesource, Inc., No. CIV.A. 3:07CV317, 2007 WL 4190794, at *4 26 (E.D. Va. Nov. 21, 2007) (sealing of a party’s medical records is appropriate). 27 1 This court issues a sealed order explaining petitioner’s motion, and the basis for sealing, in more 28 detail. 1 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 2 1. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 302) is granted. On or before 3 | April 17, 2023, the parties shall file the joint statement described in the court’s January 24 order. 4 2. Petitioner’s motion to seal (ECF No. 301) is granted. The Clerk of the Court is 5 | directed to file under seal the request to seal, the accompanying motion, and the proposed orders 6 || submitted by petitioner’s counsel to this court on February 3, 2023. 7 | Dated: March 14, 2023 8 9 10 ‘BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | DLB:9 ig DB prisoner inbox/capital/espinoza.sts rpt eot

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28