United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 2020

Gladney v. Shartle

Gladney v. Shartle
United States District Court for the District of Arizona · Decided October 22, 2020
Gladney v. Shartle

Trial Court Opinion

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Edward J Gladney, No. CV-17-00427-TUC-DCB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. JT Shartle, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On October 23, 2019, this Court issued an Order granting summary judgment for Defendants in a case brought by a transgender, feminine, prisoner, who alleged she was sexually assaulted by a fellow prisoner. She complained the Defendants failed to provide adequate monitoring of her housing unit which resulted in her assault by the out-of- bounds prisoner. She accused the Defendants of failing to adequately staff her housing unit with one guard because two were required. The Court found the latter claim was not administratively exhausted and the first claim challenged a discretionary function, i.e., a day to day security consideration. In entering summary judgment for Defendants, the Court relied on evidence submitted by the Defendants in sealed exhibits to the Statement of Facts (Doc. 110) and, therefore, sealed its Order (Doc. 131.)

25 On September 22, 2020, the Court received a Motion by Human Rights Defense Center, Johnson & Klein, PLLC, Prof. Gregg Leslie, and Prof. Eugene Volokh to Intervene for the sole purpose of unsealing the Order. The Government does not object to disclosing the Order, except to ask the Court to redact the name of the prisoner who || allegedly assaulted the Plaintiff. The Court has reviewed its Order and found reference to || the sealed evidence at page 4, lines 3 through 11 and page 5, lines 19 through 26. The || Court does not find any information there that discloses sensitive security information or 4|| personal information that has not already been disclosed in other non-sealed materials || filed in this case. The Court finds good cause to disclose its Order because, generally, || “‘judge’s opinions and orders belong in the public domain.’” (Motion (Doc. 142) at 4 7\| (citing Union Oil Co v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cr. 2000)).

8 Accordingly, 9 IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Intervene and Unseal (Doc. 142) is || GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows: 1) the Human Rights || Defense Center, Johnson & Klein, PLLC, Prof. Gregg Leslie, and Prof. Eugene Volokh shall be allowed to Intervene for the sole purpose of filing this motion, and 2) the Order || (Doc. 131) shall be disclosed by being amended to reflect the redaction of the name of the prisoner who allegedly assaulted the Plaintiff.

15 Dated this 21st day of October, 2020. = +— 19 United Ct Judge -2-

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.