United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE, United States District Judge
6, 2016, Plaintiff John Alan Conroy, an inmate in the United
States Penitentiary at Marion Correctional Center
(“Marion”) filed a pro se action for
alleged violations of his constitutional rights by persons
acting under the color of federal authority. See Bivens
v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Doc.
1). Plaintiff's original Complaint alleged that after
being moved from a three person cell to a single cell in the
Sex Offender Management Unit, he was subject to harassment
from fellow inmate Billy Minner causing Plaintiff to fear for
his safety and personal property. (Doc. 1, pp. 5, 7, 11). In
connection with these allegations, Plaintiff named the United
States, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and inmate Minner. He
sought injunctive relief moving Minner away from sex
offenders, directing the United States to investigate Minner
and requiring the BOP to review its policies and procedures.
He also sought punitive damages and attorney's fees. On
November 9, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims
with prejudice for failure to state a claim (Doc. 14). The
Court allowed Plaintiff until December 14, 2016, to file an
amended complaint. (Doc. 14, pp. 7-9).
December 12, 2016, Plaintiff deposited the following
materials in the mail at Marion: (1) Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint under John Doe or for Case to be Sealed
(Doc. 15); (2) Amended Complaint; and (3) Exhibit A (SANE -
Sexual Assault Nurse's Exam) and Exhibit B (BOP Clinical
Encounter) (Exhibit A and Exhibit B are contained in a single
6-page PDF); and (4) Exhibits Part Two. The Motion for Leave
to File Amended Complaint under John Doe or for Case to be
Sealed was filed on December 15, 2016 (“Motion to
Seal”). (Doc. 15). The Clerk refrained from filing the
Amended Complaint and exhibits pending a decision on
Plaintiff's Motion to Seal. (Doc. 15).
matter is now before the Court for a ruling on the Motion to
Seal (Doc. 15).
review of Plaintiff's conviction and collateral attacks
is necessary to place Plaintiff's Motion to Seal in
context. Plaintiff pleaded guilty to production of
child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)) and receiving a
visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit
conduct (18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)). United States v.
Conroy, No. 10-cr-041-C- BG-, Doc. 271 (N.D. Tex.). In
March 2011, he was sentenced to a total term of 405
months' imprisonment. Id. at Doc. 36. Consistent
with the plea agreement, no direct appeal was taken.
purposes of the plea agreement and sentencing, Plaintiff
admitted that while he was unemployed and often left to care
for his live-in girlfriend's children, he engaged in
numerous sexual acts with the victim, who at the time was 7
years old. Relevant to the present action, Plaintiff and the
victim performed oral sex on each other and Plaintiff placed
a razor in the victim's anus, causing lacerations. These
acts were videotaped, and the recordings were found during a
consent search, as was a razor matching the description given
by the victim. Plaintiff was interrogated by law enforcement
agents, and he admitted to having sexual contact with the
victim on 12 occasions during an approximately nine-month
period. Other details are not relevant to the Court's
consideration of the instant motion and, therefore, have been
February 2012, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Plaintiff
moved to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence.
Conroy v. United States, No. 12-cv-015-C, Doc.1
(N.D. Tex.). The district court denied Plaintiff's
Section 2255 motion. Conroy, No. 12-cv-015-C, Doc.
14. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit subsequently
declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
Conroy, No. 12-cv-015-C, Doc. 20. Plaintiff
subsequently filed two applications for permission to seek
successive collateral review: Both were denied. No. 14-10643
(Oct. 29, 2014); No. 16-10027 (Mar. 16, 2016).
also filed a § 1983 action against police alleging
threats and coercion during their investigation of him.
Conroy v. Rider, 2013 WL 12092200 (N.D. Texas Sept.
5, 2013). The district court dismissed the action as time
barred and frivolous. Id. The Fifth Circuit affirmed
in an order that assessed two strikes under the PLRA and
warned Plaintiff as follows:
The district court's dismissal of Conroy's complaint
and our dismissal of this appeal as frivolous each counts as
a strike under § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Conroy is
cautioned that if he receives a third strike under §
1915(g) he will not be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis
in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated
or detained in any facility unless he “is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.” §
Conroy v. Rider, 575 Fed.Appx. 509, 510 (5th Cir.
2015, Plaintiff initiated a Section 2241 action asserting
actual innocence. See Conroy v. Walton,
Case No. 3:15-cv-528-DRH (filed May 11, 2015).
Plaintiff's primary argument was that a SANE
report demonstrated the victim's alleged
injuries were false. Conroy v. Walton, Case
No. 3:15-cv-528-DRH (Doc. 13, pp. 4-5). Plaintiff raised
additional arguments pertaining to alleged legal errors in
his conviction and sentencing. Id. Plaintiff's
petition was dismissed on the merits, with prejudice. (Doc.
13, p. 10). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal on
appeal. Conroy v. Walton, Case No. 3:15-cv-528-DRH
seeks to proceed with this case as a “John Doe”
or to have the entire case sealed (Doc. 15). In his motion,
Plaintiff states the Amended Complaint involves
“sensitive” information and “refers to
allegations of a violent rape.” (Doc. 15). Plaintiff is
referring to the violent sexual acts perpetrated on his
7-year-old victim. The Amended Complaint and the exhibits
attached thereto reference these acts and seeks to relitigate
Plaintiff's previous habeas petitions, as well as his
§ 1983 action. Plaintiff contends having this
information in the public domain places his safety at risk.
As support for this argument, Plaintiff states he has had
several altercations with other inmates as a result of public
availability of the order dismissing his § 2255
petition. In one incident, Plaintiff was hit over the head