Houston v. United States

E.D. Tennessee

Houston v. United States

DecidedJuly 27, 2020

Docket3:17-cv-00538

StatusUnknown

This text of Houston v. United States (Houston v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Houston v. United States, (E.D. Tenn. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

CLIFFORD LEON HOUSTON, ) ) Case Nos. 3:13-cr-10; 3:17-cv-538 Petitioner, ) ) Judge Travis R. McDonough v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner Clifford Leon Houston, pro se, has submitted, according to his own description, “extremely graphic” photographs in conjunction with a “motion for full discovery.” (Doc. 15 in Case No. 3:17-cv-538.) Petitioner’s theory is that, in a 1993 federal civil rights trial, Chief Judge Pamela L. Reeves (then a practicing attorney) manufactured and entered into evidence “a large fresh green bag of marijuana,” thereby engaging in a criminal conspiracy that somehow led to the deaths of the two decedents depicted in the photographs. (See generally id.) Under Local Rule 26.2, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute, rule, or order, all pleadings and other papers of any nature filed with the Court (“Court Records”) shall become a part of the public record of this Court.” E.D. Tenn. L.R. 26.2(a). Nevertheless, the contents of a filing may intersect with other important interests that can overcome the presumption of openness in court filings. These interests include: 1) a defendant’s right to a fair trial, 2) trade secrets, 3) national security, and 4) certain privacy rights of participants and third parties. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983)). Here, Houston has filed “extremely graphic” photos portraying deceased individuals. Even according to his own theory, the fact of the two deaths is what is important, not anything depicted in the photographs. The details depicted in the photographs bear no relevance to the motion, and there is no reason to invade the privacy interest of the families of the decedents. Accordingly, the Court orders that the photos contained in Document 15-1 be SEALED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Travis R. McDonough TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

CLIFFORD LEON HOUSTON, ) ) Case Nos. 3:13-cr-10; 3:17-cv-538 Petitioner, ) ) Judge Travis R. McDonough v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner Clifford Leon Houston, pro se, has submitted, according to his own description, “extremely graphic” photographs in conjunction with a “motion for full discovery.” (Doc. 15 in Case No. 3:17-cv-538.) Petitioner’s theory is that, in a 1993 federal civil rights trial, Chief Judge Pamela L. Reeves (then a practicing attorney) manufactured and entered into evidence “a large fresh green bag of marijuana,” thereby engaging in a criminal conspiracy that somehow led to the deaths of the two decedents depicted in the photographs. (See generally id.) Under Local Rule 26.2, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute, rule, or order, all pleadings and other papers of any nature filed with the Court (“Court Records”) shall become a part of the public record of this Court.” E.D. Tenn. L.R. 26.2(a). Nevertheless, the contents of a filing may intersect with other important interests that can overcome the presumption of openness in court filings. These interests include: 1) a defendant’s right to a fair trial, 2) trade secrets, 3) national security, and 4) certain privacy rights of participants and third parties. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983)). Here, Houston has filed “extremely graphic” photos portraying deceased individuals. Even according to his own theory, the fact of the two deaths is what is important, not anything depicted in the photographs. The details depicted in the photographs bear no relevance to the motion, and there is no reason to invade the privacy interest of the families of the decedents. Accordingly, the Court orders that the photos contained in Document 15-1 be SEALED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Travis R. McDonough TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Houston v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houston-v-united-states-tned-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack