Doe et al v. Blinken et al

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 11/17/2022: IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for leave to proceed under pseudonym #2 and request to seal #7 be, and the same hereby are, GRANTED. Pursuant to Local Rule 141, the unredacted Exhibit B [1-2] shall be SEALED until further order of this Court. cc: Court Ops Supv. Sac. (Argento, E.)

Case 2:22-cv-01841-WBS-CKD Document 10 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12

JOHN DOE and JANE DOE,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

No. 2:22-cv-01841 WBS CKD

v.

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM
AND REQUEST TO SEAL

ANTONY J. BLINKEN, in his
official capacity as U.S.
Secretary of State; JULIE M.
STUFFT, in her official capacity
as Acting Deputy Assistant
Secretary and Managing Director
for Visa Services, Bureau of
Consular Affairs; JONATHAN K.
WEBSTER, in his official
capacity as Consul General of
the U.S. Embassy Abu Dhabi; and
UR MENDOZA JADDOU, in her
official capacity as Director of
USCIS,

22

Defendants.

23
24
25
26
27

----oo0oo---This mandamus action seeks to compel defendants to
issue a decision on plaintiff Jane Doe’s derivative asylum
application.

Plaintiffs now move unopposed to proceed under

28
1

Case 2:22-cv-01841-WBS-CKD Document 10 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 5
1

pseudonyms and request to seal a document inadvertently filed

2

with an unredacted name.

3

(Docket Nos. 2, 7.)

Rule 10(a) provides that “the complaint must name all

4

the parties.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a).

“The normal presumption in

5

litigation is that parties must use their real names.”

6

Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d 1036, 1042

7

(9th Cir. 2010).

8

“in special circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity

9

outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s

Doe v.

However, a party may proceed under pseudonym

10

interest in knowing the party’s identity,” including when

11

necessary to “‘protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule

12

or personal embarrassment.’”

13

Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting

14

United States v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981)); see

15

also United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1012 (9th Cir.

16

2008).

17

Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced

Plaintiffs argue that it is necessary to proceed under

18

pseudonyms because Jane Doe and their families face a risk of

19

religious persecution In Iran if their real names are used.

20

(Def.’s Mem. (Docket No. 2-1) at 2.)

21

lawful permanent resident of the United States.

22

Doe (“Doe Decl.”) (Docket No. 2-2) ¶ 1.)

23

who converted to Christianity and was granted asylum in 2016 due

24

to a risk of religious persecution if he returned to Iran.

25

¶¶ 1, 7, 9-10.)

26

currently resides in Iran because her derivative asylum

27

application is pending.

28

secretive” about John Doe’s religious conversion and asylum,

Plaintiff John Doe is a
(Decl. of John

He is a native of Iran

(Id.

However, plaintiff Jane Doe, John Doe’s wife,

(Id. ¶ 2.)

2

Plaintiffs “are very

Case 2:22-cv-01841-WBS-CKD Document 10 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 5
1

“even to [their] family members because of the consequences to

2

[Jane Doe].”

3

woman to be married to a non-Muslim man.”

4

if Jane Doe’s family were to learn of her husband’s religious

5

conversion, she would “very likely . . . be forced to divorce

6

[him] under Iranian Law.”

7

government were to learn of John Doe’s conversion, his wife and

8

both plaintiffs’ families residing in Iran would be at risk of

9

religious persecution, including “house raids, physical violence,

10

(Id. ¶ 21.)

harassment, and arrests.”

11

It is “illegal in Iran for a Muslim

(Id. ¶ 23.)

(Id. ¶ 20.)

As such,

Further, if the Iranian

(Id. ¶ 24.)

The court finds that the risk of religious persecution

12

to Jane Doe in Iran, outweighs the public’s interest in knowing

13

the parties’ identities.

14

1067-68.

15

their membership in a vulnerable religious minority and the

16

severity of the potential harm, which includes possible

17

harassment and physical violence.

18

214 F.3d at 1069 (The court “conclude[s], based on the extreme

19

nature of the retaliation threatened against plaintiffs coupled

20

with their highly vulnerable status, that plaintiffs reasonably

21

fear severe retaliation, and that this fear outweighs the

22

interests in favor of open judicial proceedings.”)

23

See Does I thru XXIII, 214 F.3d at

Plaintiffs’ fear of persecution is reasonable based on

See Advanced Textile Corp.,

The government has found this threat of persecution to

24

be credible, as it granted John Doe asylum.

(See Doe Decl. ¶¶ 9-

25

10.)

26

weighs in favor of granting plaintiffs’ request.

27

(finding that district court abused discretion in denying motion

28

to proceed under pseudonym where plaintiffs feared reprisal

The risk to plaintiffs’ family members living in Iran also

3

See id. at 1070

Case 2:22-cv-01841-WBS-CKD Document 10 Filed 11/17/22 Page 4 of 5
1

against family members living in China).

2

Plaintiffs have expressed willingness to disclose their

3

true identities to the court and opposing counsel under seal, and

4

do not otherwise request that court filings be sealed.

5

Def.’s Mem. at 2.)

6

significantly obstruct the public’s view of issues . . . or the

7

court’s performance in resolving them.’”

8

944, 946 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Advanced Textile Corp., 214

9

F.3d at 1068) (alterations adopted).

(See

Party anonymity therefore will “not

Doe v. Ayers, 789 F.3d

There also does not appear

10

to be any risk of prejudice to the defendants, who have not

11

opposed the motion and would be privy to plaintiffs’ true

12

identities.

13

In light of the foregoing, “[n]o factors weigh against

14

concealing plaintiffs’ identities.”

15

214 F.3d at 1069.

16

647 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (noting that the court had previously

17

granted permission to proceed under pseudonyms for Christians and

18

other religious minorities from Iran); Jane Doe 1 v. Nielsen, 357

19

F. Supp. 3d 972, 980 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (same); Doe v. Dordoni, 806

20

F. App’x 417, 418 (6th Cir. 2020) (noting that the district court

21

allowed Christian plaintiff from Saudi Arabia to proceed under

22

pseudonym due to fear of religious persecution).

23

plaintiffs’ motion will be granted.

24

See Advanced Textile Corp.,

See also Doe v. Risch, 398 F. Supp. 3d 647,

Accordingly,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for

25

leave to proceed under pseudonym (Docket No. 2) and request to

26

seal (Docket No. 7) be, and the same hereby are, GRANTED.

27

Pursuant to Local Rule 141, the unredacted Exhibit B (Docket No.

28

1-2) shall be SEALED until further order of this Court.
4

Case 2:22-cv-01841-WBS-CKD Document 10 Filed 11/17/22 Page 5 of 5
1

Dated:

November 17, 2022

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5