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.

Sergio Alejandro Gamez v. F. Gonzalez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 30, 2012

SERGIO ALEJANDRO GAMEZ,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
F. GONZALEZ, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS ORDER FOR CLERK TO RETURN DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF, AND TO SEND PLAINTIFF A COPY OF LOCAL RULE 141

I. BACKGROUND

Sergio Alejandro Gamez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on August 1, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint filed on April 1, 2009. (Doc. 13.)

On September 1, 2011, the Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of Defendants, closing this action. (Doc. 109, 110.) On September 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 111.) On July 25, 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part the district court's decision. (Doc. 116.) On July 25, 2012, the case was reopened at the district court.

This action now proceeds against defendants F. Gonzalez (Warden, CCI), Captain S. Wright, N. Grannis (Chief of Inmate Appeals), K. Berkeler (Senior Special Agent), K. J. Allen (Appeals Examiner), M. Carrasco (Associate Warden, CCI), Lieutenant J. Gentry, and K. Sampson (Appeals Coordinator), on Plaintiff's due process claims concerning his 2010 re-validation as a gang associate, and Plaintiff's retaliation claims associated with the 2010 re-validation. (Doc. 116.)

On November 28, 2012, Plaintiff submitted a request to seal documents.

II. REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff has submitted documents to the court, requesting the court to file the documents under seal. Plaintiff's request to seal does not meet the requirements of Local Rule 141, which requires the party seeking to seal the documents to submit a "Notice of Request to Seal Documents" which "shall describe generally the documents sought to be sealed, the basis for sealing, the manner in which the 'Request to Seal Documents,' proposed order, and the documents themselves were submitted to the Court, and whether the Request, proposed order, and documents were served on all other parties." L.R. 141(b). Plaintiff shall be provided with a copy of Local Rule 141 for his use. Plaintiff is instructed to review Local Rule 141 in its entirety and, if Plaintiff chooses to renew the request to seal documents, to comply with all parts of the Local Rule. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request to seal shall be denied without prejudice.

II. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request to seal documents is DENIED for failure to comply with Local Rule 141, without prejudice; and

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send to Plaintiff:

(1) All of the documents submitted by Plaintiff to the Court on November 28, 2012, and

(2) A copy of Local Rule 141.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20121130

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



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.