Hrachya Sakoyan v. Kristi Noem, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — A party 5 seeking to seal a judicial recor
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by an ICE detainee and a Motion to Seal an exhibit. The court ordered the government to respond, set a hearing, and granted the motion to seal the exhibit.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Ordering the Government to respond to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Therefore, the Court will order the Government to respond to the Petition.” | agree with court The court applied the standard from Kourteva v. INS, finding that the petition was not vague, conclusory, or frivolous, and thus summary dismissal was unwarranted. This is a standard procedural step in habeas proceedings when the petition has facial merit. |
Granting the Motion to Seal Exhibit A“The Court GRANTS the Motion to Seal (ECF No. 4).” | agree with court The court applied the Ninth Circuit's two-step test for sealing: (1) determining the document is more than tangentially related to the merits, and (2) finding compelling reasons to seal. The court correctly identified that the exhibit is part of the petition (merits-related) and cited Doe v. Becerra for the proposition that sensitive asylum/persecution information constitutes compelling reasons for sealing. |
Setting a hearing on the Petition“The parties must appear in Courtroom 12B on January 16, 2026, at 2:30 p.m. for a hearing on the Petition.” | agree with court This is a procedural scheduling order following the decision not to dismiss the petition summarily. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the Ninth Circuit's established test for sealing records (Foltz and Chrysler) and uses appropriate district court precedent (Kourteva) for the standard of summary dismissal in habeas cases. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for the procedural stage.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HRACHYA SAKOYAN, Case No. 25-cv-03406-BAS-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) REQUIRING THE 14 KRISTI NOEM, et al., GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND 15 Respondents. TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1); 16 17 (2) SETTING HEARING ON PETITION; AND 18 19 (3) GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL (ECF No. 4) 20 21 22 Petitioner Hrachya Sakoyan filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 23 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) In his Petition, Petitioner claims that he is being detained 24 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) in violation of immigration laws and 25 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). (Id.) In addition, Petitioner filed a Motion to 26 Seal Exhibit A to his Petition. (ECF No. 4.) 27 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at 28 this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 1 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 2 palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the Court will order the 3 Government to respond to the Petition. 4 Further, the Court finds it appropriate to seal the requested information. A party 5 seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of 6 access. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). The 7 showing required to meet this burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed 8 relate to a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for 9 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). If the filing meets 10 this requirement, the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. Here, because Exhibit A 11 is part of the Petition, the relevant court filing is “more than tangentially related to the 12 merits of the case.” See id. Even so, the Court finds compelling reasons exist to seal the 13 exhibit, as it reveals sensitive information about Petitioner’s claim for withholding of 14 removal and the basis of persecution. See Doe v. Becerra, 787 F. Supp. 3d 1083, 1096 15 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (sealing similar information concerning an asylum application). 16 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 17 1. The Government must file a response to the Petition no later than December 18 12, 2025. The Government’s response must address the allegations in the Petition and 19 must include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the 20 Petition. 21 2. Petitioner may file a reply in support of his Petition no later than December 22 19, 2025. 23 3. The parties must appear in Courtroom 12B on January 16, 2026, at 2:30 p.m. 24 for a hearing on the Petition. 25 4. The Court confirms appointment of Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., as 26 counsel for Petitioner under Chief Judge Order No. 134 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2025). 27 5. The Court GRANTS the Motion to Seal (ECF No. 4). The Clerk of Court 28 shall accept and file under seal Exhibit A to the Petition (ECF No. 5). I 6. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 2 || Office with a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1) and this Order. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 || DATED: December 4, 2025 yatta Bahar 6 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 4 United States District Court 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Qe