(HC) Solis-Torres v. FCI Mendota Warden

E.D. California

(HC) Solis-Torres v. FCI Mendota Warden

DecidedAugust 29, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-00358

StatusUnknown

This text of (HC) Solis-Torres v. FCI Mendota Warden ((HC) Solis-Torres v. FCI Mendota Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(HC) Solis-Torres v. FCI Mendota Warden, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 PUHniItLeLd ISPt aAte. sT AAtLtoBrEneRyT 2 MICHELLE RODRIGUEZ Assistant United States Attorney 3 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, CA 95814 4 Telephone: (916) 554-2700 Facsimile: (916) 554-2900 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 United States of America 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 FRANCISCO SOLIS-TORRES, CASE NSO. 1:23-cv-00358-SAB-HC 11 Petitioner, 12 ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS AS SET FORTH v. IN GOVERNMENT’S NOTICE 13 WARDEN, FCI-MENDOTA, (ECF No. 16) 14 Respondent. 15 16 17 18 Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b), and based on the representations contained in Respondent’s 19 Request to Seal, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent’s Exhibit 1 to its Notice of Filing 20 Removal Order, pertaining to Solis-Torres, and Respondent’s Request to Seal shall be SEALED until 21 further order of this Court. 22 It is further ordered that electronic access to the sealed documents shall be limited to Respondent 23 and counsel for Petitioner. 24 The Court has considered the factors set forth in Oregonian Publishing Co. v. U.S. District Court 25 for the District of Oregon, 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court finds that, for the reasons stated in 26 Respondent’s Request, sealing Respondent’s Request and Exhibit 1 serves a compelling interest. The 27 Court further finds that, in the absence of closure, the compelling interests identified by Respondent would 28 be harmed. In light of the public filing of its Notice to Seal, the Court further finds that there are no 1 || additional alternatives to sealing Respondent’s Request and Exhibit | that would adequately protect the 2 || compelling interests identified by Respondent. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 5 || Dated: _ August 29, 2023

‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 PUHniItLeLd ISPt aAte. sT AAtLtoBrEneRyT 2 MICHELLE RODRIGUEZ Assistant United States Attorney 3 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, CA 95814 4 Telephone: (916) 554-2700 Facsimile: (916) 554-2900 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 United States of America 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 FRANCISCO SOLIS-TORRES, CASE NSO. 1:23-cv-00358-SAB-HC 11 Petitioner, 12 ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS AS SET FORTH v. IN GOVERNMENT’S NOTICE 13 WARDEN, FCI-MENDOTA, (ECF No. 16) 14 Respondent. 15 16 17 18 Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b), and based on the representations contained in Respondent’s 19 Request to Seal, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent’s Exhibit 1 to its Notice of Filing 20 Removal Order, pertaining to Solis-Torres, and Respondent’s Request to Seal shall be SEALED until 21 further order of this Court. 22 It is further ordered that electronic access to the sealed documents shall be limited to Respondent 23 and counsel for Petitioner. 24 The Court has considered the factors set forth in Oregonian Publishing Co. v. U.S. District Court 25 for the District of Oregon, 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court finds that, for the reasons stated in 26 Respondent’s Request, sealing Respondent’s Request and Exhibit 1 serves a compelling interest. The 27 Court further finds that, in the absence of closure, the compelling interests identified by Respondent would 28 be harmed. In light of the public filing of its Notice to Seal, the Court further finds that there are no 1 || additional alternatives to sealing Respondent’s Request and Exhibit | that would adequately protect the 2 || compelling interests identified by Respondent. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 5 || Dated: _ August 29, 2023

‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(HC) Solis-Torres v. FCI Mendota Warden, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-solis-torres-v-fci-mendota-warden-caed-2023.