Wattson v. Contra Costa County Sheriff.com et al

Filing 6

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S NAME. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 4/15/2014. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/15/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (cdnS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CYBER EBOT WATTSON,

Case No. 14-cv-01690-MEJ

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S NAME

v.
9
10

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
SHERIFF.COM, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On April 11, 2014, Plaintiff Cyber Ebot Wattson filed the above-captioned case, stating

13
14

that Plaintiff is a “Cybernet citizen.” Upon review of the Complaint, it is not clear that Cyber

15

Ebot Wattson is Plaintiff’s legal name. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 requires that “the title

16

of [a] complaint must name all the parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). This rule embodies the notion

17

that “plaintiffs’ use of fictitious names runs afoul of the public’s common law right of access to

18

judicial proceedings.” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir.

19

2000) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’n, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598-99 (1978)). “As a general rule,

20

‘the identity of the parties in any action, civil or criminal, should not be concealed except in an

21

unusual case, where there is a need for the cloak of anonymity.’” United States v. Stoterau, 524

22

F.3d 988, 1012 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Doe, 488 F.3d 1154, 1155 fn. 1 (9th Cir.

23

2007)).

24

The Ninth Circuit has identified three situations in which parties have been allowed to

25

proceed anonymously: “(1) when identification creates a risk of retaliatory physical or mental

26

harm; (2) when anonymity is necessary to preserve privacy in a matter of a sensitive and highly

27

personal nature; and (3) when the anonymous party is compelled to admit his or her intention to

28

engage in illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal prosecution.” Dep’t of Fair Emp’t & Hous. v.

1

Law Sch. Admission Council, Inc., 2012 WL 3583023, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2012) (citing

2

Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068). A party requesting to remain anonymous must make

3

an affirmative showing that “the party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing

4

party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d

5

at 1068.

6

If Plaintiff’s legal name is Cyber Ebot Wattson, Plaintiff must provide documentation

7

establishing as much. If it is not and Plaintiff wishes to proceed using a fictitious name, Plaintiff

8

must first overcome the presumption that the use of fictitious names conflicts with the public’s

9

common law right of access to judicial proceedings. Accordingly, by April 25, 2014, the Court
ORDERS Plaintiff to file either (1) documentation establishing that Cyber Ebot Wattson is

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff’s legal name, or (2) a motion to proceed using a pseudonym.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15
16

Dated: April 15, 2014
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2