(PS) Parlante v. American River College

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 09/09/21 DENYING 4 Motion to Proceed under Pseudonym. (Benson, A.)

Case 2:20-cv-02268-KJM-JDP Document 7 Filed 09/09/21 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN PARLANTE,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:20-cv-02268-KJM-JDP (PS)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO PROCEED USING A PSEUDONYM

v.
ECF No. 3
AMERICAN RIVER COLLEGE, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, who currently resides in Nevada, is suing a college in California and a student

18

who allegedly attacked him on campus. ECF No. 6. The attacker is unknown to plaintiff. Id.

19

Plaintiff moves to proceed using a pseudonym in this case. ECF No. 4. In support of his motion,

20

he alleges that he is disabled and that publicly disclosing his disability could limit future

21

employment opportunities. Id. at 1. He also claims that his student records, including records of

22

disability, are private. Id. at 2.

23

Parties must litigate under their own names unless a case is “exceptional.” Doe v. Ayers,

24

789 F.3d 944, 946 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). “When a party requests Doe

25

status, the factors to be balanced against the general presumption that parties’ identities are public

26

information, are: (1) the severity of the threatened harm; (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous

27

party’s fears; and (3) the anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation.” Id. at 945 (internal

28

citations and quotation marks omitted). For example, in Ayers, petitioner “(1) was granted
1

Case 2:20-cv-02268-KJM-JDP Document 7 Filed 09/09/21 Page 2 of 2
1

penalty-phase habeas relief based on sealed, graphic evidence regarding repeated sexual assault in

2

prison, and (2) submitted credible evidence that he would likely be subjected to more violence if

3

his name was revealed alongside the evidence of this abuse.” Id. at 946. Allegations to support

4

pleading with a pseudonym must be supported by evidence. See id.; John Doe v. Fellows, No.

5

89-15869, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 3721, at *4 (9th Cir. Mar. 5, 1991) (“Doe’s contention that he

6

will be subject to police reprisals if his true identity is revealed is without any factual basis and is

7

insufficient to warrant a cloak of anonymity.”)

8

Here, plaintiff does not allege that repeated violence has been visited against him or that

9

any violence will continue. Plaintiff asserts that he was attacked once by a stranger and now he

10

lives in a different state from where the incident occurred. Plaintiff also presents no evidence that

11

disclosure of his disability will prevent employment. Thus, plaintiff’s motion lacks any factual

12

basis for a finding in his favor. Further, plaintiff’s concerns regarding private documents, to the

13

extent that they are needed for review in this case, can be adequately addressed by redaction and

14

filing under seal. See Local Rules 140, 141. Plaintiff’s case is not an exceptional one that

15

overrides the presumption that his identity is public information.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to proceed using a pseudonym, ECF No. 4, is denied.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
Dated:
20
21

September 9, 2021
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2