Doe v. San Joaquin County et al

Filing 6

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/17/2018 ORDERING that the Plaintiff is PERMITTED to proceed under a pseudonym. The Court finds Plaintiff's need for anonymity outweighs the prejudice to Defendants and the public's interest in knowing Plaintiff's identity; Clerk to issue summons. (Fabillaran, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JANE DOE,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:18-cv-00667-TLN-AC
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, SHERIFF
STEVE MOORE, and DANNY
SWANSON,
Defendants.

17
18

This matter involves allegations of constitutional violations brought by an inmate. (See

19

ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff’) filed the instant complaint by using a pseudonym and

20

not her legal name. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why the complaint should not

21

be stricken for failure to offer a reason for allowing Plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym.

22

(ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff filed a response on the same day the Court issued the Order to Show

23

Cause. (ECF No. 3.) The Court denied the response without prejudice and ordered Plaintiff to

24

respond with more information within seven days of the order. (ECF No. 4.)

25

In this circuit, the Court allows parties to use pseudonyms in the “unusual case” when

26

nondisclosure of the party’s identity “is necessary... to protect a person from harassment, injury,

27

ridicule or personal embarrassment.” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d

28

1058, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing United States v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n. 1 (9th
1

1

Cir.1981)). The Ninth Circuit held “a party may preserve his or her anonymity in judicial

2

proceedings in special circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to

3

the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” Id. at 1068. Courts

4

have generally allowed parties to proceed under a pseudonym in three instances: (1) when

5

identification creates a risk of retaliation; (2) where it is necessary to preserve privacy in a matter

6

of a sensitive and highly personal nature; and (3) where the party is compelled to admit an

7

intention to engage in illegal conduct. Id. Where a court determines a pseudonym is used to

8

shield the plaintiff from retaliation, the court must evaluate the following factors: (1) the severity

9

of the threatened harm; (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous person’s fears; and (3) the

10
11

anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation. Id.
Plaintiff alleges sexual assault claims within her complaint. (ECF No. 1.) “Upon

12

consideration of the appropriate public-policy and privacy concerns, the district courts of this

13

circuit uniformly allow plaintiffs alleging sexual assault to proceed under pseudonyms.” N.S. by

14

and through Marble v. Rockett, 2017 WL 1365223, at * 2 (D. Or. Apr. 10, 2017) (collecting

15

cases). Thus, based on the complaint, Plaintiff has a strong interest in anonymity.

16

As to prejudice to the Defendants, Plaintiff contends Defendants are aware of her identity

17

as she disclosed her identity when she filed an inmate grievance for the same acts alleged in the

18

complaint. (ECF No. 5 at 6.) Thus, the Court finds little prejudice to Defendants where

19

Defendants are fully aware of the identity of their adversary.

20

Finally as to the public’s interest, Plaintiff concedes the public has an interest in her

21

identity but also contends there is a strong public interest in encouraging victims of sexual assault

22

and harassment to come forward. (ECF No. 5 at 6.) Plaintiff further argues the orders and

23

decisions of the Court will still remain public, but will simply exclude her name. (ECF No. 5 at

24

6.) Courts have found “the public’s interest in allowing alleged victims of sexual assault to

25

proceed anonymously outweighs the public’s interest in disclosing Plaintiff’s identity.” Doe v.

26

Penzato, 2011 WL 1833007, at * 5 (C.D. Cal. May 13, 2011). The Court agrees with the court in

27

Penzato and finds the public’s interest in this matter is best served by anonymity. Further, the

28

Court does find allowing Plaintiff to use a pseudonym in the instant matter is necessary to
2

1

preserve privacy in a matter of a sensitive and highly personal nature.

2

For the forgoing reasons, the Court finds Plaintiff’s need for anonymity outweighs the

3

prejudice to Defendants and the public’s interest in knowing Plaintiff’s identity. Accordingly,

4

Plaintiff is permitted to proceed under a pseudonym. The Clerk of Court is directed to issue

5

summons in this matter.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 17, 2018

8
9
10

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3