Freeman v. Burkhart et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
GREGORY FREEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 1:26-cv-01128-MLG-KK
FNU BURKHART,
ADELA MATA,
KATHERINE WORTHINGTON,
JESSACA WRIGHT,
FNU ROGERS,
CITY OF ROSWELL and
CHAVES COUNTY,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS
This case arises from Plaintiff’s arrest by Defendant Roswell Police Officer Burkhart and
events related to subsequent state-court proceedings. 	See Complaint at 1, 30. Plaintiff alleged
Defendant Burkhart provided false information in the arrest report and intentionally omitted other
evidence. 	See Complaint at 1. 	Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Lead District Attorney Mata,
Defendant Assistant District Attorney Worthington, and Defendant District Attorney Staff Wright
“intentionally suppressed and omitted” evidence and misrepresented to the court that they lacked
Plaintiff’s contact information. 	Complaint at 1-2. 	Plaintiff asserted an equal protection claim
“arising from Defendant Burkhart’s selective documentation and fabrication of a narrative,” due
process claims arising from the District Attorney Defendants regarding their “perjurious
representations and the suppression of exculpatory evidence,” an “obstruction of justice” claim
against state-court Defendant Judge Rogers arising from “his physical suppression of the record,”
and a civil rights conspiracy claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985 “wherein the Defendants worked
Case 1:26-cv-01128-MLG-GJF Document 19 Filed 04/24/26 Page 1 of 4

2
in concert to bypass the law and maintain a fraudulent prosecution against the Plaintiff.”
Complaint at 2.
Plaintiff seeks to seal his Motion, now before the Court, and three documents attached to
the Motion “pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority to protect sensitive information that, if made
public, would cause substantial harm to the community.” Notice of Ethical Concern and Motion
for Leave to File Under Seal, Doc. 15, filed April 21, 2026 (“Motion”).
There is a longstanding common-law right of public access to judicial records.
United States v. Pickard, 733 F.3d 1297, 1302 (10th Cir. 2013). This right “is
fundamental to the democratic state” and preserves “the integrity of the law
enforcement and judicial processes” by allowing the public to see how courts make
their decisions. United States v. Bacon, 950 F.3d 1286, 1297 (10th Cir. 2020) (first
quoting United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293, 315 (D.C. Cir. 1980), and then
quoting United States v. Hickey, 767 F.2d 705, 708 (10th Cir. 1985)). The right of
access is not absolute, but the party seeking to seal a judicial record must show
“some significant interest that outweighs” the public interest in access to the
records. Helm v. Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Mann v.
Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007)). This burden is “heavy,” and
sealing is appropriate only when the interest in confidentiality is “real and
substantial.” Id.; see 10th Cir. R. 25.6(A)(3) (requiring the movant to “articulate a
substantial interest that justifies depriving the public of access to the document”);
Brown v. Flowers, 974 F.3d 1178, 1187–88 (10th Cir. 2020) (“We will not
permanently seal any documents unless [the movant] ‘overcomes a presumption in
favor of access to judicial records by articulat[ing] a real and substantial interest
that justifies depriving the public of access to the records that inform our decision-
making process.’ ” (quoting Sacchi v. IHC Health Servs., Inc., 918 F.3d 1155, 1160
(10th Cir. 2019) (second alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
McWilliams v. Dinapoli, 40 F.4th 1118, 1130-31, 1133 (10th Cir. 2022); Elevate Federal Credit
Union v. Elevations Credit Union, 67 F.4th 1058, 1085 (10th Cir. 2023) (“Vague and conclusory
statements do not meet [the heavy burden to demonstrate a real and substantial interest that
outweighs the public interest in accessing the documents]”).
Plaintiff asserts:
In the course of developing the forensic roadmap contained within these documents
to prove the “Bad Faith” and “Extraordinary Circumstances” required for federal
intervention, 	the 	Plaintiff 	has 	uncovered 	systemic 	financial 	dependencies.
Case 1:26-cv-01128-MLG-GJF Document 19 Filed 04/24/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Specifically, the “Plea Mill” metrics identified are tied to essential federal grant
programs, including the STOP Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and the
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program . . . The Plaintiff
recognizes that the information contained within these filings is so aggressive and
forensically sound that its public dissemination could trigger an immediate and
catastrophic loss of federal funding for the State of New Mexico and the City of
Roswell. The Plaintiff is deeply concerned that a public filing would unintentionally
harm the most vulnerable members of his community –women and children who
are legitimate victims of domestic violence and who rely on the services funded by
these grants. The Plaintiff asserts that these services are vital, and the incentives
for law enforcement to protect legitimate victims must remain intact.
Motion at 1. Plaintiff contends that the delay in the prosecution of his state-court case is the result
of Plaintiff being “not merely a defendant in a criminal case, but a ‘target of necessity’ for a ‘Plea
Mill’ that requires high-volume throughput to sustain its federal funding,” “not merely a result of
administrative backlog, but a coordinated, bad-faith effort to maintain federal funding metrics
through the sacrifice of due process and the willful defiance of ministerial duties.” Motion at 4, 7.
Plaintiff bases his contention on his review of publicly available data from the FBI and Department
of Justice, financial records regarding federal grants, judicial records, and federal and state law.
See Motion at 3-11.
The Court denies Plaintiff’s request to seal his Motion and the three documents attached to
the Motion. 	Plaintiff has not met his heavy burden of showing that sealing the documents is
appropriate because he has not shown that the interest in confidentiality in the documents is real
and substantial. The federal grant records, state court records and federal and state laws to which
Plaintiff refers in those documents are publicly available. 	Plaintiff has not shown that his
speculative concern, that women and children who rely on the federally-funded programs may be
harmed if the funding is reduced, outweighs the interests of allowing the public, including other
criminal defendants similarly situated, access to the records informing the Court’s decision-making
process. See Motion at 4 (Plaintiff states “granting the Plaintiff his Factual Innocence . . . would
Case 1:26-cv-01128-MLG-GJF Document 19 Filed 04/24/26 Page 3 of 4

4
trigger a systemic collapse of the regional ‘Plea Mill.’ A finding of factual innocence based on the
suppression of evidence would grant every current and former defendant within the Roswell
Correctional Center (RCC) and Chaves County Detention Center (CCDC) the explicit opportunity
to challenge and vacate their own convictions based on this precedent of systemic fraud”).
The Motion and the attached documents are currently restricted to “Case Participants”
which means they are not accessible to the public. Because the Court is denying Plaintiff’s motion
to seal the Motion and the attached documents, the Court directs the Clerk to remove the restriction
and make the Motion and the attached documents available to the public.
IT IS ORDERED that:
(i) 	Plaintiff’s Notice of Ethical Concern and Motion for Leave to File Under Seal,
Doc. 15, filed April 21, 2026, is DENIED.
(ii) 	The Clerk remove the restriction on Plaintiff’s Notice of Ethical Concern and
Motion for Leave to File Under Seal, Doc. 15, filed April 21, 2026, and the attached
documents and make the documents accessible to the public.
_____________________________________
KIRTAN KHALSA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-01128-MLG-GJF Document 19 Filed 04/24/26 Page 4 of 4