Rodriguez v. Warden, Lovelock Correctional Center

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 26, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00498
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 ABIMAEL RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 3:24-cv-00498-MMD-CSD

7 Petitioner, ORDER v. 8

9 WARDEN LOVELOCK CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et al., 10 Respondents. 11 12 I. SUMMARY 13 In this pro se habeas action, Respondents filed a Motion for Leave to File Exhibit 14 22 In Camera and Under Seal (“Motion to Seal” (ECF No. 10)) and Petitioner Abimael 15 Rodriguez filed a Motion for an Extension of Time (First Request) (“Motion to Extend 16 Time” (ECF No. 14)) to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss. The Court denies the 17 Motion to File Exhibit 22 In Camera and grants the remaining motions. 18 II. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXHIBIT UNDER SEAL 19 To overcome the strong presumption in favor of public access, a party seeking the 20 sealing of exhibits filed in an action must make a particularized showing as to why the 21 exhibit should be sealed and provide compelling reasons, supported by specific factual 22 findings, for the request. See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 23 (9th Cir. 2006); Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). In 24 general, compelling reasons for sealing exist when court records might become a vehicle 25 for improper purposes, such as “to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate 26 libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Demaree v. Pederson, 887 F.3d 870, 884 27 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). 28 Respondents move (ECF No. 10) for leave to file in camera and under seal Exhibit 1 || 22, a Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”) (ECF No. 11-1). Rodriguez filed no 2 || response to the motion and the time to do so has expired. Under Nevada law, the PSI is 3 || “confidential and must not be made a part of any public record.” NRS § 176.156(5). 4 || Having considered the matter under Kamakana and its progeny, the Court finds a 5 || compelling need to protect individual privacy outweighs the public interest in open access 6 || to the PSI and considers Exhibit 22 properly filed under seal. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d 7 |} at 1179. Although Respondents request filing Exhibit 22 in camera for the safety of the 8 || victim, the prison staff, and Rodriguez, this is accomplished by sealing the exhibit. 9 lll. MOTION TO EXTEND TIME 10 Rodriguez moves for a 28-day extension of time to respond to the Motion to 11 || Dismiss (ECF No. 14) and anticipates that he will move for the appointment of counsel. 12 || Respondents oppose the Motion to Extend Time (ECF No. 15) to the extent Rodriguez 13 || bases his need for additional time on delays at the prison library. Rodriguez replied with 14 || a detailed explanation demonstrating his request is made in good faith and not solely for 15 || the purpose of delay (ECF No. 16). Good cause exists to grant the Motion to Extend Time. 16 IV. CONCLUSION 17 It is therefore ordered that Respondents’ Motion for Leave to File Exhibit 22 /n 18 || Camera and Under Seal (ECF No. 10) is granted in part and denied in part. The Motion 19 || to File Exhibit 22 (ECF No. 11-1) Under Seal is granted and the exhibit is considered 20 || properly filed under seal. Respondents’ Motion to File Exhibit 22 [In Camera is denied 21 || without prejudice. 22 It is further ordered that Petitioner Abimael Rodriguez’s Motion for an Extension of 23 || Time (First Request) (ECF No. 14) to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss is granted. 24 || Rodriguez will have until March 10, 2025, to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss. 25 DATED THIS 26! Day of February 2025.

27 MIRANDAM.DU 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE