Doe et al v. Woodard et al

Filing 28

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 7/20/15. Motion to Proceed Anonymously by Doe Plaintiffs # 2 is DENIED as moot. Amended Unopposed Motion to Proceed Anonymously by Doe Plaintiff # 27 is GRANTED.(lgale, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01165-KLM
JANE DOE, and
I.B., by her mother and next friend, Jane Doe,
Plaintiffs,
v.
APRIL WOODARD, El Paso County Department of Human Services caseworker,
individually and as an agent, employee, and representative of El Paso County;
AMANDA ALBERT, El Paso County Department of Human Services caseworker,
individually and as an agent, employee, and representative of El Paso County;
CHRISTINA NEWBILL, Supervisor, El Paso County Department of Human Services,
individually and as an agent, employee, and representative of El Paso County;
KRYSTAL GRINT, Staff Development and Training Supervisor at the relevant time, El Paso
County Department of Human Services, individually and as an agent, employee, and
representative of El Paso County;
MARIAN PERCY, Children, Youth and Family Services Deputy Director, El Paso County
Department of Human Services, individually and as an agent, employee, and
representative of El Paso County;
SHIRLEY RHODUS, Children, Youth and Family Services Director, El Paso County
Department of Human Services, individually and as an agent, employee, and
representative of El Paso County;
CHRIS GARVIN, Deputy Director, El Paso County Department of Human Services,
individually and as an agent, employee, and representative of El Paso County;
RICHARD BENGTSSON, Executive Director, El Paso County Department of Human
Services, individually and as an agent, employee, and representative of El Paso County;
JEFF GREENE, County Administrator over El Paso County Department of Human
Services, individually and as an agent, employee, and representative of El Paso County;
EL PASO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, for injunctive relief;
REGGIE BICHA, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Human Services, in his
official capacity, for injunctive relief; and
EL PASO COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, comprised of Sallie Clark,
Darryl Glenn, Dennis Hisey, Amy Lathen, and Peggy Littleton, in their official capacity,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
1

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Proceed Anonymously by Doe
Plaintiffs [#2]1 (the “First Motion”), which was initially opposed by one Defendant, First
Motion [#2] at 2, and the Amended Unopposed Motion to Proceed Anonymously by
Doe Plaintiff [#27] (the “Second Motion” and collectively with the First Motion, the
“Motions”).
The Motions request permission for Plaintiffs to proceed in this lawsuit using
pseudonyms. Because the Motions request identical relief, the First Motion is moot.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a), “[e]very action shall be prosecuted in the name of the
real party in interest.” According to the Tenth Circuit, the “use of pseudonyms concealing
plaintiffs’ real names has no explicit sanction in the federal rules. Indeed it seems contrary
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) which requires the names of all parties to appear in the complaint.”
Lindsey v. Dayton-Hudson Corp., 592 F.2d 1118, 1125 (10th Cir. 1979). In fact, a case
filed using a pseudonym in place of a party’s true name can be dismissed for failure to
comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a), absent permission from the Court to proceed
anonymously. See, e.g., M.M. v. Zavaras, 139 F.3d 798, 803-04 (Mar. 17, 1998) (affirming
trial court’s dismissal). However, “the Supreme Court has given the practice implicit
recognition in the abortion cases . . . with minimal discussion.” Lindsey, 592 F.2d at 1125.
Most of the cases that have allowed the use of pseudonyms “have involved abortion, birth
control, and welfare prosecutions involving abandoned or illegitimate children.” Id.
Therefore, “identifying a plaintiff only by a pseudonym is an unusual procedure, to be

1

“[#2]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use
this convention throughout this Order.

2

allowed only where there is an important privacy interest to be recognized. It is subject to
a decision by the judge as to the need for the cloak of anonymity.” Id.
In this case, Plaintiffs are a minor child and her mother. Complaint [#1] ¶¶ 7-8.
Further, this case involves allegations that the minor child was undressed and physically
searched on at least two instances without her mother’s permission. Id. ¶¶ 33-37, 43-47.
It is also alleged that photographs of “private and unclothed areas” of the minor child’s body
were taken during the second search. Id. ¶ 46.
Plaintiffs argue that their interests in anonymity strongly outweigh the public’s
interest in knowing their identities. Second Motion [#27] at 3-4. Specifically, Plaintiffs
maintain that the allegations relating to the minor child in this case are similar to those
made by adult plaintiffs who bring sexual assault claims and are afforded anonymity. Id.
at 3. Plaintiffs further maintain that this case should protect the minor child’s identity just
as Colorado statutes protect minor children and their family members from being identified
in reports of child abuse or neglect. Id. at 5. With regard to the minor child’s mother,
Plaintiffs argue that the mother should also be allowed to proceed anonymously because
is she does not “the child would be immediately identifiable . . . .” Id. at 3.
The Court agrees with Plaintiffs. Because this case involves a minor child who
alleges that she was in appropriately strip searched and photographed, the minor child has
a strong interest in anonymity. In addition, it is alleged that the strip searches were
conducted by case workers investigating allegations of child abuse. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 191-307(1)(a) requires that “reports of child abuse or neglect and the name and address of
any child, family, or informant or any other identifying information contained in such reports
shall be confidential and shall not be public information.” Therefore, it is clear that the state
3

of Colorado mandates that children such as Plaintiff I.B. be protected from identification.
In this case, the Court is inclined to recognize the state policy regarding confidentiality
inherent in the statutory language. As Plaintiffs argue, identification of Plaintiff Jane Doe,
the minor child’s mother, would make the minor child immediately identifiable. As a result,
the Court finds that it is appropriate to allow her to also proceed anonymously.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the First Motion [#2] is DENIED as moot and the
Second Motion [#27] is GRANTED.
Dated: July 20, 2015

4