Christian v. United States ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Eric Leon Christian, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00842-CDS-BNW 5 Plaintiff Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions and Unsealing Records 6 v. 7 United States of America, [ECF Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12] 8 Defendant 9 10 There are four pending motions filed by plaintiff Eric Christian in this action: (1) a 11 motion for demand of judgment (ECF No. 5); (2) a sealed ex parte motion for emergency habeas 12 appeal (ECF No. 7); (3) an emergency motion for ex parte writ of attachment (ECF No. 9); and 13 (4) a second motion for demand of judgment (ECF No. 12). As ordered on May 6, 2024 (ECF No. 14 3), and again on June 10, 2024 (ECF No. 13), Christian must file a complaint, and if appropriate, 15 other paperwork before this action may proceed. Accordingly, the motions for demand of 16 judgment are denied as premature. Christian is reminded that he must comply with the June 10, 17 2024 order. ECF No. 13. 18 Both of Christian’s emergency motions are denied in part because neither motion 19 complies with Local Rule 7-4, which sets forth the requirements for filing an emergency motion, 20 which includes but is not limited to a declaration that sets forth the nature of the emergency. See 21 LR 7-4. The emergency motion for habeas appeal is additionally denied because there is no 22 pending petition for habeas relief, making this motion moot. 23 Further, Nevada law provides two procedural mechanisms through which a plaintiff may 24 obtain a pre-judgment writ of attachment: a plaintiff may ask the court to issue a writ of 25 attachment after notice and hearing on the grounds stated in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 26 31.013 or may request that the court issue a writ of attachment without notice under the grounds stated in NRS 31.017. Christian cites neither ground for seeking a writ of attachment, fails to include a proper application for the writ, and further fails to submit an affidavit meeting the 3] requirements of NRS 31.020 in support of his motion. Thus, his emergency motion for ex parte 4|| writ of attachment is also denied on those grounds. 5 Finally, Christian has filed three documents under seal without seeking leave to do so. See ECF Nos. 7; 8; 11. “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy 7|| public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City and 8|| Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9 Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Comme’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 9589, 597 n.7 (1978)). To keep documents attached to non-dispositive motion under seal, a party 10]/ need only show “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26©. Id. at 1180. Here, 11} Christian did not seek an order permitting his ex parte emergency habeas appeal or ex parte 12|| status updates to be filed under seal. Accordingly, those documents may not remain under seal and are hereby ordered unsealed. 14 Conclusion 15 For the reasons set forth herein, Christian’s demand for judgment [ECF No. 5], ex parte emergency habeas appeal [ECF No. 7], emergency motion for ex parte writ of attachment [ECF No. 9], and demand for judgment [ECF No. 12] are denied. 18 The Clerk of Court is kindly instructed to unseal ECF Nos. 7, 8,and ll. 19 Dated: June 17, 2024 /, / 20 Li lA — 1 Une Staes Dist Judge 22 23 24 25 26