Russum v. Warden Bean

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 5, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01017
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Montrell Russum, Case No.: 2:24-cv-01017-CDS-DJA

5 Petitioner Order Granting Motion to Seal

6 v. [ECF No. 15] 7 Warden Bean, et al.,

8 Respondents 9 10 This is Montrell Russum’s pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 11 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 6. Respondents have filed a motion for leave to file an exhibit in camera 12 and under seal. ECF No. 15. While there is a presumption favoring public access to judicial 13 filings and documents, see Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978), a party seeking 14 to seal a judicial record may overcome the presumption by demonstrating “compelling reasons” 15 that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 16 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). In general, “compelling reasons” exist 17 where the records may be used for improper purposes. Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). 18 Here, respondents ask to file Russum’s presentence investigation report (“PSI”) in camera and 19 under seal because it is confidential under state law and contains sensitive information 20 concerning his crimes. ECF No. 15. Additionally, respondents state that under NDOC 21 regulations, inmates cannot possess a copy of their PSI in their cell and must submit 22 documentation to their caseworker in order to view the report. The court has reviewed the PSI 23 and concludes that respondents have demonstrated compelling reasons to file the PSI under seal. 24 However, if petitioner is not permitted to possess a copy of the PSI in his cell and has to go 25 through his caseworker to review it, there does not appear to be a security concern or a concern 26 about the health and safety of staff and inmates. So filing the PSI in camera is not necessary or 2|| warranted. Accordingly, the motion is granted in part, and the PSI will remain under seal. 3 It is therefore ordered that respondents’ motion for leave to file an exhibit in camera and 4] under seal [ECF No. 15] is granted in part and denied in part. The document will remain under seal. 6 Dated: May 5, 2025 /, / 7 LZ

9 Ve States District Judge / 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26