1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 CHARLES MORRIS, Case No. 3:18-CV-00310-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITH LEAVE TO REFILE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 6 v. INJUNCTION, GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER 7 ROMEO ARANAS, et al., SEAL, AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTIONS TO EXTEND TIME TO REPLY 8 Defendants. [ECF Nos. 127, 131, 134, 135, 137] 9 10 This case involves a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff Charles Morris (“Morris”) 11 against Defendants Romeo Aranas (“Aranas”), Isidro Baca (“Baca”), Shelly Conlin 12 (“Conlin”), Richard Long (“Long”), David Mar (“Mar”), Melissa Mitchell (“Mitchell”), and 13 William Miller (“Miller”) (collectively referred to as “Defendants”). Currently pending before 14 the Court is Morris’s emergency motion for preliminary injunction, (ECF No. 127), to which 15 Defendants responded (ECF No. 130). Also pending before the Court is Defendants’ 16 motion for leave to file documents under seal, (ECF No. 131), and several motions for 17 extension of time for Morris to file his reply to the motion for preliminary injunction. (ECF 18 Nos. 134, 135, 137.) For the reasons stated below, the Court denies with leave to refile 19 the motion for preliminary injunction, (ECF No. 127), grants the motion to seal, (ECF No. 20 131), and denies as moot the motions to extend time, (ECF Nos. 134, 135, 137). 21 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 22 Morris is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections 23 (“NDOC”) and is currently housed at Northern Nevada Correctional Center (“NNCC”). 24 Morris initiated this action on June 27, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) He submitted a civil rights 25 complaint pursuant to

against multiple Defendants for events that took place while he was incarcerated.1 (ECF No. 43). Morris’s second amended complaint, 26

27 1 Morris was transferred five times between four facilities (NNCC, Lovelock 1 which is the operative complaint in this case, includes two claims. The first is an Eighth 2 Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendants 3 Aranas, Long, Mitchell, and Mar, and the second is an Eighth Amendment deliberate 4 indifference to serious threats to inmate’s safety claim against Defendants Baca, Miller, and Conlin. (Id.) 5 On June 21, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment arguing they 6 were not deliberately indifferent to Morris’s serious medical needs or threats to his safety, 7 they are entitled to qualified immunity, several Defendants lack personal participation, no 8 NDOC personnel created an unsafe condition, Morris is not entitled to injunctive relief, 9 and he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 65.) Morris opposed the 10 motion and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, (ECF Nos. 75, 83). Morris moved 11 for summary judgment on his unsafe prison conditions claim, only. (See id.) 12 Ultimately, this Court recommended that the motions for summary judgment be 13 denied, as genuine issues of material fact existed that precluded summary judgment. 14 (ECF No. 92.) The District Court adopted and accepted the report and recommendation, 15 and thereafter ordered the parties to file a joint pretrial order. (ECF Nos. 93, 105.) The 16 joint pretrial order was submitted by the parties on January 30, 2023, (ECF No. 123), and 17 adopted by the District Court on February 1, 2023, (ECF No. 124). 18 On March 10, 2023, the District Court withdrew a prior order denying Morris’s 19 motion for appointment of counsel and referred this case to the Court’s Pro Bono Program 20 for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 126.) 21 On April 18, 2023, Morris filed the instant emergency motion for preliminary 22 injunction. (ECF No. 127.) On September 18, 2023, pro bono counsel Paola Armeni, 23 Esq., was appointed as counsel for Morris. (ECF No. 142.) On October 10, 2023, this 24 case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in accordance with

636(c), as the parties consented to the undersigned’s jurisdiction to conduct all 26 proceedings in this case including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial 27

Correctional Center, Ely State Prison, and High Desert State Prison) throughout the time 1 proceedings. (ECF No. 145.) 2 II. DISCUSSION 3 For the purpose of judicial economy and with the above background in mind, the 4 Court finds that Morris’s emergency motion for preliminary injunction, (ECF No. 127), 5 should be denied with leave to refile, now that pro bono counsel has been assigned to 6 this matter. Further, Morris’s motions for extension of time to file a reply, (ECF Nos. 134, 7 135, 137), are denied as moot. 8 As to Defendants’ motion for leave to file documents under seal, (ECF No. 131), 9 which is unopposed by Morris, the Court finds that the motion should be granted. 10 Defendants move to file exhibits to the response to the motion for preliminary injunction 11 under seal based on the exhibits containing Morris’s confidential medical information. 12 (See ECF Nos. 131, 132.) When the documents proposed for sealing are “more than 13 tangentially related” to the merits of the case, the Court applies the compelling reasons 14 standard to determine whether sealing is appropriate. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 15 Grp., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2016). Under the compelling reasons standard, 16 “a court may seal records only when it finds ‘a compelling reason and articulate[s] the 17 factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.’” United States v. 18 Carpenter,

(9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Ctr. for Auto Safety,

1096-97) (alteration in original). Here, the referenced exhibits contain Morris’s sensitive 20 health information. Balancing the need for the public’s access to information regarding 21 medical treatment against the need to maintain the confidentiality of the information 22 weighs in favor of sealing these exhibits. Accordingly, the Court finds compelling reasons 23 exist to seal the documents, and thus the motion, (ECF No. 131), is granted. 24 Finally, in light of the parties newly consenting to the undersigned’s jurisdiction, the 25 Court will contact the parties to set a status conference in this matter. 26 III. CONCLUSION 27 For good cause appearing and for the reasons stated above, IT IS THEREFORE 1 | DENIED with leave to refile. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for leave to file documents under seal, (ECF No. 131), is GRANTED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Morris’s motions for extension of time, (ECF Nos. 5 134, 135, 137), are DENIED as moot. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in light of the parties consenting to the 7 | Uundersigned’s jurisdiction, the Court will contact the parties to set a status conference at 8 | atime convenient for both the parties and the Court to discuss trial in this matter. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 | DATED: October 12, 2023. ‘ | .

11 1 UNITED STATES\MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28