Rashad Abbaszade v. Christopher Larose et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Rashad Abbaszade, an immigration detainee, filed a motion for release from custody and a motion to restrict or seal court documents citing fears of information sharing with the Azerbaijani government. The court denied both motions, finding no new basis for release and that the petitioner's unsupported assertions were insufficient to justify anonymity or sealing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for release denied“The Court DENIES the motion for release as Petitioner does not present any new facts or legal basis for ordering his release from immigration custody.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that a motion for release requires a showing of changed circumstances or new legal arguments, particularly after a prior order for a bond hearing. The order explicitly states the petitioner failed to present new facts or legal basis, which is the standard requirement for successive motions. |
Motion for restriction of documents denied“Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for restriction of documents.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit standard for anonymity and sealing, which requires a showing that the need for anonymity outweighs the public interest. The court found the petitioner's allegations 'conclusory and unsupported,' which is a valid basis for denial under the cited authorities. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and relies on appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent for the standard of review regarding anonymity and sealing. The reasoning directly addresses the petitioner's arguments by identifying them as conclusory and unsupported, which aligns with the cited case law. There are no significant gaps in the legal analysis for the specific motions presented.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RASHAD ABBASZADE, Case No.: 3:26-cv-1750-CAB-VET 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS 13 v. [Doc. Nos. 14, 15] 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner Rashad Abbaszade (“Petitioner”) has filed two motions—a motion for 18 release, [Doc. No. 14], and a motion for restriction of documents, [Doc. No. 15]. The Court 19 previously ordered the government to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing. [Doc. No. 20 13.] The Court DENIES the motion for release as Petitioner does not present any new 21 facts or legal basis for ordering his release from immigration custody. 22 As for the motion for restriction of documents, Petitioner requests the Court to delete 23 or hide “anything related to Federal Court, Immigration Bond Court and Immigration Court 24 in [his] name[.]” [Doc. No. 15.] Petitioner states that he is concerned that “representatives” 25 of various nationalities may pass information about Petitioner to the Azerbaijani 26 government. 27 Confidentiality may be preserved by permitting a party to proceed anonymously, 28 sealing a filing, or redacting sensitive information. Anonymity is only permitted “in special 1 || circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity outweighs . . . the public’s interest in 2 || knowing the party’s identity.” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 3 || 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). Petitioner’s conclusory and unsupported assertion that information 4 || may be passed to a foreign government is insufficient to meet his burden. See Roe v. Skillz, 5 858 F. App’x 240, 241-42 (9th Cir. 2021) (affirming denial of a motion to proceed 6 under a fictitious name when plaintiff offered only “conclusory and general statements 7 || without explanation or support”); see also Guven vy. Jaddou, No. CV 22-CV-8456 PA 8 ||(ASX), 2022 WL 22969356, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2022) (A “conclusory allegation[] 9 without supporting evidence is insufficient to demonstrate Plaintiffs need for 10 |}anonymity[.]”). Similarly, Petitioner fails to sufficiently show a basis for retroactively 11 |/sealing all the filings in this case or redacting anything that could identify Petitioner. 12 || Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for restriction of documents. 13 Itis SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: August 18, 2026 € 15 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28