Starkes v. United States
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-00265
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Starkes v. United States, Judge Schofield kept the amended motion alive, ordered an answer, and granted Starkes’s motion to seal specified materials.
Quentin Starkes, the United States, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and the parties and individuals authorized to access the sealed documents.
What happened
In Starkes v. United States, Quentin Starkes filed an amended motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 after an earlier court order. He also asked to seal unredacted versions of his legal memorandum and two exhibits because they contained confidential health information.
The court said the amended motion should not be summarily dismissed as meritless. It ordered the U.S. Attorney’s Office to file an answer or other response by April 5, 2021, and allowed Starkes to respond by May 5, 2021.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted Starkes’s motion to seal. The unredacted documents will remain sealed, with access limited to the parties and individuals identified in the appendix; the court did not decide the merits of the amended motion.
The detailed version
- Starkes v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-00265
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 2, 2021
Background
Pursuant to the court’s November 23, 2020, order, Quentin Starkes filed an amended motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on February 1, 2021. The opinion does not describe the claims or requested relief in that motion.
Starkes also moved to redact and file under seal the unredacted versions of his memorandum of law and Exhibits C and D to Leila Ledain’s declaration, all filed in support of the amended motion.
Rulings
The court stated that the amended motion should not be summarily dismissed as without merit. It ordered the U.S. Attorney’s Office to file an answer or other pleading responding to the motion by April 5, 2021. Starkes could file a response by May 5, 2021, after which the motion would be considered fully submitted unless the court ordered otherwise.
The court granted Starkes’s motion to seal. It explained that the common-law right of public access to judicial documents is not absolute and that courts balance competing considerations against that presumption. The court found that filing the documents in redacted form was necessary to prevent unauthorized dissemination of confidential health information. The unredacted memorandum and Exhibits C and D were to remain sealed, with access limited to the parties and individuals identified in the attached appendix. The appendix identifies AUSA Alexandra Rothman. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 23.
Effect of the Order
This order did not decide the merits of Starkes’s amended § 2255 motion. It allowed the motion to proceed to a response and granted the separate sealing request.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.