Lind v. Ballard, No. 2:2014cv26284 - Document 10 (S.D.W. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SEALING EXHIBITS re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) and exhibits in support; directing the exhibits designated as ECF Nos. 1-1 and 1-2 to be SEALED until further order of the court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 10/10/2014. (cc: petitioner) (taq)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lind v. Ballard Doc. 10 IN TH E U N ITED STATES D ISTRICT COU RT FOR TH E SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF W EST VIRGIN IA CH ARLESTON D IVISION JON ATH AN JOSEPH LIN D , Pe titio n e r, v. Cas e N o .: 2 :14 -cv-2 6 2 8 4 D AVID BALLARD , W ARD EN , Mo u n t Olive Co rre ctio n al Co m p le x, Re s p o n d e n t. MEMORAN D U M OPIN ION AN D ORD ER SEALIN G EXH IBITS Petitioner has filed exhibits in support of his Petition under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the instant m atter. (ECF Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6). Two of these exhibits include personal psychiatric inform ation or other inform ation for which privacy protection redactions should have been m ade, but were not m ade as required by Fed.R.Civ.P 5.2 and the Local Rules of this District. Due to the highly confidential nature of these particular exhibits, the Court ORD ERS the exhibits designated as ECF N o s . 1-1 an d 1-2 to be SEALED until further order of the court. The undersigned is cognizant of the well-established Fourth Circuit precedent recognizing a presum ption in favor of public access to judicial records. Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 20 0 0 ). As stated in Ashcraft, before sealing a docum ent, the Court m ust follow a three step process: (1) provide public notice of the request to seal; (2) consider less drastic alternatives to sealing the docum ent; and (3) Dockets.Justia.com provide specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to seal the docum ents and for rejecting alternatives. Id. at 30 2. In this case, the exhibits shall be sealed and will be designated as sealed on the Court s docket. The Court deem s this sufficient notice to interested m em bers of the public. The Court has considered less drastic alternatives to sealing the docum ents, but in view of the confidential and specially protected nature of the records, as well as the extent of the private inform ation contained therein, no such alternatives are feasible at this tim e. Moreover, the exhibits pertain to personal m atters which have no particular relevance to the general public. Accordingly, the Court finds that keeping the exhibits sealed until proper redactions can be m ade, or until disclosure is deem ed necessary for the purposes of the proceeding, will not unduly or significantly prejudice the public s right to access judicial records. The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to the Petitioner. EN TERED : October 10 , 20 14
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
