Carlson Gray Swafford v. Richard Evangelista - Motion to Seal IFP Financial Records Order

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 16, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Carlson Gray Swafford v. Richard Evangelista, Esq., in His Official and Individual Capacities; Kyle Flemming, in His Official and Individual Capacities; and Gordon Rhea, Esq., In His Official and Individual Capacities

District Court, Virgin Islands

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:25-cv-00038

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (3.4K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
║
CARLSON GRAY SWAFFORD, ║
║
Plaintiff, ║ 1:25-cv-00038-RAM-EAH
v. ║
║
RICHARD EVANGELISTA, ESQ., in ║
His Official and Individual ║
Capacities; KYLE FLEMMING, in ║
His Official and Individual ║
Capacities; and GORDON RHEA, ESQ., ║
In His Official and Individual ║
Capacities, ║
Defendants. ║
________________________________________________ ║
TO: Carlson Gray Swafford, Pro Se

ORDER
THIS MATTER
comes before the Court on the “Motion to Seal IFP and Remote
Participation Related Financial Records Pursuant to Local Rule and Common Law Right of
Privacy” (“Motion to Seal”), filed on March 31, 2026 by Plaintiff Carlson Gray Swafford,
1
appearing pro se. Dkt. No. 24. Mr. Swafford asks the Court to seal his personal financial
records that he submitted in connection with his In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) Motions and
Motion for Remote Participation filings (Dkt. No. 2, Dkt. No. 7-1 through 7-15, Dkt. No. 8, Dkt.
Nos. 17-2 through 17-5, and exhibits filed in support of his Objection to Magistrate Judge’s
Order Denying IFP Status, Dkt. Nos. 29-1 through 29-5.
In the Motion to Seal, Mr. Swafford argues that the “common law right of access to
judicial records is not absolute,” and courts in the Third Circuit weigh the public’s interest in
1

Mr. Swafford has filed two Motions to Appear In Forma Pauperis, Dkt. Nos. 2, 7, that the
Swafford v. Evangelista
1:25-cv-00038-RAM-EAH
Order
Page 2

access against a party’s interest in privacy. Dkt. No. 24 at 2. He posits that, when documents
contain sensitive personal financial information submitted for a threshold procedural
determination, rather than a substantive mer.i tIsd .adjudication, the privacy interest is at its
highest and the public interest is at its lowest The documents he wishes to seal contain
bank balances, credit card statements, mortgage records, a household budget, spousal
income, familial loan information, education references, and a loIgd . of over 180 job
applications—submitted solely to establish his eligibility for IFP status. D oMer v. S. wMaefgfolersds ,adds
that “[c]ourts routinely seal IFP-related financial submissions,” citing 654
F.3d 404, 408 (3d Cir. 2011). He submits that his “detailed financial records” go “far beyond
what any litigant would ordinarily place on a public docket,” and were “compeIldle. d” by this
Court’s “repeated demands for increasingly granular financial documentation.”
Mr. Swafford adds that the documents, filed on the public docket, are accessible to
anyone including the unserved Defendants, who could review his complete financial picture,
employment history, job search strategy, and other matters, thereby obtaining information
that ordinarily would be gleaned only Itdh.rough formal discovery subject to protective orders
and reciprocal disclosure obligations. at 3. This “asymmetry” was created through the IFP
process, and sealing the records would “restore the balance tIhda. t would ordinarily exist prior
to service of process or the commencement of discovery.” Mr. Swafford asserts that he
does not seek to seal Court Orders or documents bearing on the merits of the underlying

claims but only his rIadw. financial records and personal data submitted in connection with the
Swafford v. Evangelista
1:25-cv-00038-RAM-EAH
Order
Page 3
DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standards
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, entitled “Privacy Protection for Filings Made with
the Court,” governs redaction and sealing. It provides, in pertinent part, that:
Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or paper filing with the court
that contains an individual’s social-security number, taxpayer-identification
number, or birth date, the name of an individual known to be a minor, or a
financ ial-account number, a party or nonparty making the filing may include
only:
(1) The last four digits of the social-security number and taxpayer-
identification number;
(2) The year of the individual’s birth;
(3)The minor’s initials; and
(4)The last four digits of the financial-account number.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). Rule 5.2(d) provides that the court “may order that a filing be made
under seal without redaction.” Rule 5.2(h) provides that “a person waives the protection of
Rule 5.2(a) as to the person’s own information by filing it without redaction and not under
seal.”
Long-established case law emphasizes that “the public right of access Mtoin eju Sdaifceitayl
pArpopclieaendciensg Cs oa.n vd. Nre. cRoirvders iIsn isn. Cteog.ral and essential to the integrity of the judiciary.” Bank of
Am. Nat’l Tr. & Sav. Ass’n v. Hotel, 7R3it.t Fen. Shuopupse. 3Adss 5o4cs4., 557-58 (W.D. Pa. 2014) (citing
, 800 F.2d 3 3Id9., 343 (3d Cir. 1986)).The
right is “pervasive” and “serves numerous salutary functions.” District courts must “be
sensitive to the rights of the pubIdlic in determiningL weuhceathdeiar, aInncy. vp.a Arptipcluieladr Edxotrcuusmioenn tT e. c. h. sis.,
Swafford v. Evangelista
1:25-cv-00038-RAM-EAH
Order
Page 4

court procIdeedings; it also encompasses the right of the public to inspect and copy judicial
records.” . at 559 (citation modified). A party seeking to seal any part of a judicial record
“bears the heavy burden of showing that the material is the kind of information that courts
will protect and tIhdat disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party
seeking closur eI.d”. . (citation modified). In sum, there is a “strong presumption of openness”
in such filings. at 558.
Moreover, redactions are preferable to sealingS eeen Htiarelm daonc uAmldeunbtis P broevcaiduesnet i&t hPaesn sleiosns
oFfu annd si mLtpda. cvt. Toenv tah Peh oapremnsn. eInssd uosf .j Lutddi.c,ial proceedings.
No. 20-cv-04660, 2023 WL 1100995, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Jan.
30, 2023) (finding that proposed redactions that are limited in scope are preferable to
wholesale sealing). “Therefore, where possibDleel, Npearroti ve.s N sChOo uFlidn .p Sryosp., oIsnec .,redactions, rather
than placing a whole document under seal.” No. 21-cv-04823,
2021 WIIL. 2375A8p9p2l,i acta *ti2o (nE .D. Pa. June 10, 2021).

The Court notes that Mr. Swafford’s initial IFP motion, Dkt. No. 2, contained a dearth
of information concerning Mr. Swafford’s financial situation, which caused the Court to deny
the motion without prejudice because it could not ascertain whether he qualified for IFP
status, Dkt. No. 5. In his December 22, 2025 refiled IFP motion, Mr. Swafford filled out the
IFP application more fulsomely and submitted numerous supporting documents to support

his application—including bank, credit card, and mortgage statements, a tax return, utility
Swafford v. Evangelista
1:25-cv-00038-RAM-EAH
Order
Page 5

for jobs. Dkt. Nos. 7, 7-1 through 7-15. In the documents with sensitive information such as
account or social security numbers, either the entity provided only a partial account number
or Mr. Swafford appropriately redacted all or part of the account number or other personal
identification numbers/information. These redactions complied with Rule 5.2, and the Court
was able to make an assessment concerning whether he qualified for IFP status.
As to the merits of Bthaeh rM vo. Mtioanri nto Seal, ‘“Courts typically treat IFP applications as
matters of public record.S”’a i v. ABDI , No. 23-cv-376, 2023 WL 3088296, at *1 (S.D. Cal.
Mar. 28, 2023) (qseueo tailnsgo Tater-Alexa, nNdoe.r 1 v7. -Acvm-e1r9j4an1, 2018 WL 9781844, at *4 (W.D. Wash.
Apr. 23, 2018)); , No. 1:08-cv-00372, 2008 WL 961234,
at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2008) (“An application to proceed [IFP] is not within the narrow range
of matters, such as records of grand jury proceedings, traditionally sealed because of
important policy reasons.”). Sampath
2
v. ConcuTrhree nCto Turetc hfosu. Cnodr opnly one case in this Circuit that has addressed the issue. In
., No. 03-cv-264, 2008 WL 11511504 (W.D. Pa. May 14, 2008), the
district court considered a party’s motion to seal his IFP application. While that court had
seen “a constant stream of applications for IFP status,” it could not recall “ever ordIedr.ing that
a supporting affidavit be filed under seal or, indeed, having seen such an order.” at *1. It
2 Doe v. Megle ss Doe
Mr. Swafford’s statement that “courts routinely seal IFP-related financial submissions,” Dkt.
No. 24 at 2, cites , 654 F.3d 404, 408 (3d Cir. 2011) Iidn. support. concerned
the issue of whether a plaintiff could proceed under a pseudonym and required the litigant
Swafford v. Evangelista
1:25-cv-00038-RAM-EAH
Order
Page 6
Tater-Alexander

approvingly cited the reasoning in , 2008 WL 961234, at *1-3, which held
that records concerning IFP applications “are judicial records subject to public access since
IFP applications involve a statutorily based exercise of the judicial function and the public
has an interest in the proper exercise of such function, and that there are no special indicia
of privacy in the kinds of informSaamtiopnat dhisclosed in a typical IFP affidavit that would warrant
filing the affidavit under seal.” , 2008 WL 1151504, at *1 (citation modified).
The Court agrees with this reasoning. As the Court wrote in its Orders denying Mr.
Swafford’s IFP applJiocahtniosonns , v“.a pCpitryo voifn Pg hai lmaotion to proceed without paying fees is within a
court’s discretion. ., 589 F. Appx 419, 429 (3d Cir. 2015). When
exercising that discretioIdn., a court “must be rigSowroauffso r. d. .v t. oE veannsguerleis tthaat the treasury is not
unduly imposed upon.” (citation modified).” , 1:25-cv-0038. (D.V.I.
Mar. 11, 2026) (Dkt. No. 20). Thus, the public has a right to know that courts, acting in this
circumstance as stewards of the pbuenbelifcit fisc, are exercising their discretion properly in either
granting or denying persons the of proceeding in forma pauperis. In such a situation,
“the public right of access to judicial proceedings and records”—wMhiniceh S a“ifse tiyn Atepgprlaial nacneds
Cesos.ential to the integrity of the judiciary”—is a paramount concern.
, 73. F. Supp. 3d at 557-58.
Moreover, even if a case could be made that the information contained within IFP
affidavits (and other documents cited in the motion) might be protected, Mr. Swafford has

nIno tr esh Coewnnd atnhta tC “odrips.c,losure [would] work a clearly defined and serious injury” against him.
Swafford v. Evangelista
1:25-cv-00038-RAM-EAH
Order
Page 7 Id. allegations of harm, bereft of specific examples or articulated reasoning, are insufficient.”
Here, Mr. Swafford has not carried his heavy burden to override the common law right of
access. He provides no support for his statement that his financial records “go far beyond
what any litigant would ordinarily place on the docket”; even so, this statement does not
show that he suffered injury. His position that his financial records “create asymmetrical
prejudice” such that the Defendants (who have not yet been served because his IFP status is
not resolved) would gain some litigation advantage without having to obtain this
iCnefnodramnattion through discovery is merely a general concern and insufficient to show injury.
, 283 F.3d at 194. Courts haveS efoeu, en.dg. thGautp gtaen ve. rDails pcorvivearc Bya cnokncerns are insufficient to
demonstrate good cause for sealing. , , No. 21-cv-00648, 2021
WL 5045069, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2021) (denying request to seal IFP application where
plaintiff claimed fiWnaimncbiearl liyn vfo. rEmxpaetrioiann w Inafso “. sSeonlss.itive information and [he does] not want the
public to see it”); , No. 18-cv-06058, 2021 WL 1146277, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2021) (“general concerns over disclosure of fSinAaIn vc.i aDle spt'att uofs Hhaovmee blaenedn hSeecld.
insufficient to overcome the presumption of peuxb plaicr taeccess.); , 149 F. Supp. 3d 99, 128 (D.D.C. 2015) (denying application to file affidavit in support
of IFP status under seal where plaintiff made “unsupported assertion of an unqualified
interest in privacy” and “general assertion that the affidavits might ‘disclose embarrassing
and potentially Shaairmful information, such as an affiant's family situation, disability, [or]

dependents’ ”); , 2018 WL 9781844, at *4 (denying motion to seal IFP application where
Swafford v. Evangelista
1:25-cv-00038-RAM-EAH
Order
Page 8

plaintiff “vaguely objects to the possibility of some type of harm, and generally objects to the
inclusion of information required by [thCeO INFCPL aUpSpIlOicNation] on the public record”).
ORDERED DENIED.
Accordingly, it is hereby that the Motion to Seal, Dkt. No. 24, is
The Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this Order to Mr. Swafford by certified mail, return
receipt requested.
ENTER:
Dated: April 16, 2026 /s/ Emile A. Henderson III
EMILE A. HENDERSON III
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE