(HC)Barraza Romero v. Warden, FCI Mendota

E.D. California

(HC)Barraza Romero v. Warden, FCI Mendota

DecidedAugust 21, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-00161

StatusUnknown

This text of (HC)Barraza Romero v. Warden, FCI Mendota ((HC)Barraza Romero v. Warden, FCI Mendota) 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)Barraza Romero v. Warden, FCI Mendota, (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

11 HECTOR ORLANDO BARRAZA ROMERO, CASE NO. 1:23-cv-00161-SAB-HC

12 Petitioner, ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS AS SET FORTH 13 v. IN GOVERNMENT’S NOTICE

14 WARDEN, FCI-MENDOTA, (ECF No. 14)

15 Respondent.

16 17 18 Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b), and based on the representations contained in the Respondent’s 19 Request to Seal, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent’s Exhibit 1 to the Notice of Filing Removal 20 Order, pertaining to Barraza Romero, and Respondent’s Request to Seal shall be SEALED until further 21 order of this Court. 22 It is further ordered that electronic access to the sealed documents shall be limited to the 23 Respondent 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 the Respondent’s Request and Exhibit 1 that would adequately protect 2 || the compelling interests identified by the Government. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 5 Dated: _ August 21, 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

11 HECTOR ORLANDO BARRAZA ROMERO, CASE NO. 1:23-cv-00161-SAB-HC

12 Petitioner, ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS AS SET FORTH 13 v. IN GOVERNMENT’S NOTICE

14 WARDEN, FCI-MENDOTA, (ECF No. 14)

15 Respondent.

16 17 18 Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b), and based on the representations contained in the Respondent’s 19 Request to Seal, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent’s Exhibit 1 to the Notice of Filing Removal 20 Order, pertaining to Barraza Romero, and Respondent’s Request to Seal shall be SEALED until further 21 order of this Court. 22 It is further ordered that electronic access to the sealed documents shall be limited to the 23 Respondent 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 the Respondent’s Request and Exhibit 1 that would adequately protect 2 || the compelling interests identified by the Government. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 5 Dated: _ August 21, 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)Barraza Romero v. Warden, FCI Mendota, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hcbarraza-romero-v-warden-fci-mendota-caed-2023.