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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?