1 2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 FRANCISCO ANTONIO CRUZ, Case No. 3:24-cv-00552-MMD-CLB Petitioner, 7 ORDER 8 v.

9 TERRY ROYAL, et al., Respondents. 10 11 Francisco Antonio Cruz has filed what he has styled a motion for extension of time 12 to seek leave to file an amended

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 13 (ECF No. 26.) Cruz explains he did not initially receive the Court’s April 10, 2025 order 14 serving the petition, advising Cruz that, if he did not include all claims, he could seek leave 15 to amend, and directing Respondents to respond to the petition. (See ECF No. 11.) The 16 Ely State Prison law library gave Cruz Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25) (filed 17 July 11, 2025) on July 23, 2025. The library supervisor also gave Cruz the April 10, 2025 18 order at that time. Cruz states that if he had received the order when it issued that he 19 would have sought leave to amend. The supervisor told him, “We did not know the 20 [screening/service order] was there, sorry.” (ECF No. 26 at 2.) Cruz now requests an 21 extension of time to seek leave to amend. The Court finds the request is made in good 22 faith and not for the purposes of delay, and, therefore, good cause exists to grant the 23 extension. The Court advises that a motion to amend must be accompanied by a 24 proposed amended complaint. LR 15-1(a). Because Cruz intends to file for leave to 25 amend his petition, the Court denies Respondents’ motion to dismiss without prejudice. 26 (ECF No. 25.) 27 Respondents have also filed a motion for leave to file an exhibit in camera and 28 under seal. (ECF No. 21.) While there is a presumption favoring public access to judicial 1 || filings and documents, see Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc.,

(1978), 2 || aparty seeking to seal a judicial record may overcome the presumption by demonstrating 3 || “compelling reasons” that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See Kamakana 4 || v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu,

, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). 5 || ln general, “compelling reasons” exist where the records may be used for improper 6 || purposes. /d. at 1179 (citing Nixon,

). Here, Respondents ask to file Cruz’s 7 || presentence investigation report (“PSI”) in camera and under seal because it is 8 || confidential under state law and contains sensitive information concerning his crimes, his 9 || criminal history, and personal identification information. (ECF No. 21.) The Court has 10 || reviewed the PSI and concludes that Respondents have demonstrated compelling 11 || reasons to file the PSI under seal. However, the PSI does not appear to include 12 || information so sensitive that it would pose a security threat to Cruz if he had access to 13 || the PSI. Respondents note the PSI may be necessary to address one or more claims in 14 || the petition. Accordingly, the motion is granted in part, and the PSI will remain under seal. 15 It is therefore ordered that Cruz’s motion for extension of time to file a motion for 16 || leave to amend the petition (ECF No. 26) is granted. The deadline is extended to October 17 || 13, 2025. 18 It is further ordered that Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25) is denied 19 || without prejudice. 20 It is further ordered that Respondents’ motion for leave to file an exhibit in camera 21 || and under seal (ECF No. 21) is granted in part. The document will remain under seal. 22 DATED THIS 19" Day of September 2025.

24 25 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27 28