(PS) Allen v. City of Citrus Heights Police Dept. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CRAIG DOUGLAS ALLEN, No. 2:20–cv–1853–JAM–KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 9) 14 CITRUS HEIGHTS POLICE DEPT., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Previously, the undersigned recommended plaintiff’s IFP application be denied, but that 18 plaintiff be allowed to pay the filing fee in installments. (ECF No. 3.) The district court adopted 19 these recommendations, and ordered that once the filing fee was satisfied, service on defendants 20 could proceed. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff has satisfied the $400 filing fee, and so the case may 21 proceed to the service-of-process phase. 22 Further, the court is in receipt of plaintiff’s motion to seal. (ECF No. 9.) Requests to seal 23 documents in this district are governed by Local Rule 141. In brief, the rule provides that 24 documents may only be sealed by a written order of the court after a specific request to seal has 25 been made. Local Rule 141(a). However, a mere request to seal is not enough. Local Rule 26 141(b) requires that “[t]he ‘Request to Seal Documents’ shall set forth the statutory or other 27 authority for sealing ...” E.D. Local Rule 141(b). The court starts “‘with a strong presumption in 28 favor of access to court records,’” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 2 | (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption of access is “based on the need for federal courts, although 3 || independent — indeed, particularly because they are independent — to have a measure of 4 | accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Id. 5 || (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir.1995)). A request to seal material 6 || must normally meet the high threshold of showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy. Id. 7 | (citing Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). Here, 8 | plaintiff makes no such showing, and so his request is denied. 9 ORDER 10 It is HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The clerk of the court shall issue the appropriate scheduling order, service documents, 12 and documents related to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction; 13 2. Plaintiff shall effectuate service on defendants, as directed by the scheduling order and 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4; and 15 3. Plaintiff's motion to seal is DENIED. 16 |} Dated: May 5, 2021 " Aectl Aharon 18 KENDALL J. NE alle. 1853 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28