Larsen v. Larsen et al

Filing 37

ORDER RE: Case caption (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on December 9, 2011. (slf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
John Doe 156,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil No. 10-4728 (JNE/SER)
ORDER

Gregg Alan Larsen et al.,
Defendants.
“Every pleading must have a caption with . . . a title . . . . The title of the complaint must
name all the parties . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Nevertheless, a plaintiff may proceed
anonymously under certain circumstances. See, e.g., Doe v. Elmbrook Sch. Dist., 658 F.3d 710,
721-24 (7th Cir. 2011); Doe v. Megless, 654 F.3d 404, 408-11 (3d Cir. 2011); Plaintiff B v.
Francis, 631 F.3d 1310, 1315-19 (11th Cir. 2011). In this case, John Doe 156 neither sought nor
received leave to proceed anonymously. He disclosed his true name in open court during his
testimony at a hearing on November 17, 2011. Within seven days of the date of this Order, John
Doe 156 shall show cause why the caption of this action should not be amended to reflect his
true name. Cf. Elmbrook Sch. Dist., 658 F.3d at 721-22 (recognizing district court’s independent
duty to determine whether exceptional circumstances warranted departure from normal method
of proceeding in federal court); Megless, 654 F.3d at 406 (affirming district court’s dismissal of
action in which plaintiff failed to proceed using real name after denial of his motion to proceed
anonymously); W.N.J. v. Yocom, 257 F.3d 1171, 1172 (10th Cir. 2001) (stating that a party who
“wishes to file a case anonymously or under a pseudonym . . . must first petition the district court
for permission to do so”; that permission, if granted, is often subject to “the requirement that the
real names of the plaintiffs be disclosed to the defense and the court but kept under seal
thereafter”; and that “[w]here no permission is granted, ‘the federal courts lack jurisdiction over

1

the unnamed parties, as a case has not been commenced with respect to them’”); Doe v. Blue
Cross & Blue Shield United of Wis., 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997) (“[W]e would be remiss if
we failed to point out that the privilege of suing or defending under a fictitious name should not
be granted automatically even if the opposing party does not object.”); James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d
233, 238 (4th Cir. 1993) (stating that “there is a judicial duty to inquire into the circumstances of
particular cases to determine whether” a party may proceed anonymously).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 9, 2011
s/ Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge

2