Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Higgins v. California Attorney General

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 4, 2009

HAROLD R. HIGGINS DBA THE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

On July 13, 2009, plaintiff once again has submitted what purports to be a sealed document without complying with the procedures established in the Local Rules for the sealing of documents. The July 13 document is titled "Sealed Ex Parte Writ for a California Attorney General Judicial Review & Equitable Indemnity," which seeks review of an August 2008 decision by the California Attorney General denying plaintiff's request to view documents within the state archives of former California Governor Pete Wilson.*fn1

For the reasons previously explained to plaintiff, Dckt. No. 5, he must comply with Local Rule 39-141 which authorizes the sealing of documents only upon motion and a written order of the court. As with earlier filings, he has not complied with that rule with this most recent filing. Moreover, the subject "writ" addresses the same or similar matters set forth in plaintiff's original and amended complaints, and thus plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause for withholding this information from public scrutiny.

The court previously cautioned plaintiff of his obligation to adhere to the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the orders of this court. Plaintiff is further directed that he shall not submit or file any more documents in this case, either directly or purportedly under seal, until after: (1) plaintiff has demonstrated service of process upon defendants, and (2) defendants have filed a responsive pleading or motion. Failure of plaintiff to adhere to this ruling, or the court's previous ruling, shall result in the imposition of monetary or other sanctions, including the possibility of dismissal.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's ex parte writ for review and equitable indemnity, submitted July 13, 2009, is denied;

2. The Clerk of Court shall unseal and file the writ; and

3. Plaintiff shall not submit or file any more documents in this case, either directly or under seal, until after he has demonstrated service of process upon defendants, and defendants have filed a responsive pleading or motion.

SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.