Durr v. Warden High Desert State Prison ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Terrel Durr, Case No.: 2:22-cv-00732-JAD-NJK 4 Petitioner Order Granting Motion to Seal and 5 v. Granting Extension of Time to Respond to Amended Petition to 6 Warden High Desert State Prison, et al., January 29, 2024 7 Respondents [ECF Nos. 29, 31] 8 9 Respondents have two motions pending in Terrel Durr’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus 10 matter, in which he challenges his conviction of robbery in the Eighth Judicial District Court 11 (Clark County, Nevada) and adjudication as a habitual criminal.1 First, for good cause 12 appearing, I grant respondents’ motion for a brief extension of time to file a response to the 13 amended petition.2 14 Second, respondents have filed a motion for leave to file an exhibit in camera and under 15 seal.3 While there is a presumption favoring public access to judicial filings and documents,4 a 16 party seeking to seal a judicial record may overcome the presumption by demonstrating 17 “compelling reasons” that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure.5 In general, 18 “compelling reasons” exist where the records may be used for improper purposes.6 Here, 19 1 ECF No. 20. 20 2 ECF No. 30. 21 3 ECF No. 29. 22 4 See Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). 5 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations 23 omitted). 6 Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). respondents ask to file Durr’s presentence investigation report (“PSI”) in camera and under seal 2|| because it is confidential under state law.’ They also state, without elaboration, that concerns 3] about the safety of Durr and the victim warrant the filing of the PSI in camera and under seal. | have reviewed the PSI and conclude that respondents have demonstrated compelling reasons to 5| file the PSI under seal. But the PSI does not appear to include information that is so sensitive that it would pose a security threat to Durr if he had a copy of the PSI in his cell, and it does not 7\\ identify the victim. Respondents note that the PSI may be necessary to address some grounds in 8|| the petition. In that event, Durr may need access to the PSI. So the motion is granted in part, 9] and the PSI will remain under seal. 10 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ third unopposed motion for extension 11]| of time to file a response to the amended petition [ECF No. 31] is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. 12|| The deadline to file the response is extended to January 29, 2024. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents’ motion for leave to file exhibit in camera and under seal [ECF No. 29] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The exhibit will remain under seal. 16 17 US. District ge Jennift Dorse 18 January 23, 202 19 20 21 22 23 7 ECF No. 29.