Doe v. The University of Mississippi et al
Filing
7
ORDER granting 4 Motion to Proceed Pseudonymously. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 4/6/18 (RBM)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
ANDREW DOE
PLAINTIFF
VS.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-cv-138-DPJ-FKB
THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI;
STATE INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER
LEARNING (“IHL”); TRACY MURRY,
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; HONEY USSERY,
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; STATE OF
MISSISSIPPI; and DOES 1-5
DEFENDANTS
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PROCEED PSEUDONYMOUSLY
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Pseudonymously [4]. For the reasons
described herein, the Court finds that the motion should be granted.
Plaintiff, hereinafter “Andrew Doe,” is a student who has been issued a long-term
suspension by the University of Mississippi after he was accused of sexually assaulting another
student, hereinafter “Bethany Roe.” Doe claims that no assault occurred, and that Roe confirmed
to law enforcement that the sexual encounter at issue was consensual. He contends that the
university’s investigation improperly relied on statements by Roe’s friends, rather than Roe
herself. Doe challenges the legality of the university’s investigation and disciplinary procedures
that resulted in his suspension. He contends that the nature of the suit necessitates usage of
pseudonyms to protect his identity and the identity of Bethany Roe.
At the heart of this case is a sexual encounter between Doe and Roe, which he claims was
consensual and the University Judicial Council found amounted to sexual assault. The complaint
1
contains Doe’s detailed description of the sexual encounter as he contends it occurred. [1] at 7-10.
Doe alleges that Defendants improperly failed to consider certain pieces of evidence during the
investigation and disciplinary hearings. In support of this allegation, he describes in great detail
evidence which he contends is exculpatory, including statements by Roe to doctors and police,
interviews with other witnesses, and reports compiled by the university. Id. at 9-14.
The legal standard in determining whether a party should be able to proceed
pseudonymously is as follows:
Litigating under pseudonyms “requires a balancing of considerations
calling for maintenance of a party's privacy against the customary and
constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings.” Doe
v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 186 (5th Cir. 1981). The Fifth Circuit has identified three
factors “common to those exceptional cases in which the need for party anonymity
overwhelms the presumption of disclosure”: (1) plaintiffs are “suing to challenge
governmental activity; (2) prosecution of the suit compels plaintiffs to disclose
information ‘of the utmost intimacy;’ and (3) plaintiffs [are] compelled to admit
their intention to engage in illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal prosecution.”
Id. at 185 (citing S. Methodist Univ. Ass'n of Women Law Students v. Wynn & Jaffe,
599 F.2d 707 (5th Cir. 1979)).
These factors do not form a “rigid, three-step test for the propriety of party
anonymity.” Id. A party need not prove all three to proceed anonymously. Doe v.
El Paso Cty. Hosp. Dist., No. EP-13-CV-406-DCG, 2015 WL 1507840, at *2
(W.D. Tex. Apr. 1, 2015) (citing Plaintiff B v. Francis, 631 F.3d 1310, 1316 (11th
Cir. 2011) and Stegall, 653 F.2d at 186). Nor are the factors exclusive. The Fifth
Circuit chose to “advance no hard and fast formula for ascertaining whether a party
may sue anonymously.” 653 F.2d at 186. Courts, therefore, have considered other
circumstances, including whether plaintiffs would face threats of “violence or
physical harm by proceeding in their own names, and whether their anonymity
posed a unique threat of fundamental unfairness to the defendant.” Plaintiff B, 631
F.3d at 1316 (citing Stegall, 599 F.2d at 713).
Doe v. Hood, No. 3:16-cv-00789-CWR-FKB, 2017 WL 2408196, at *1 (S.D. Miss. June 2, 2017).
The Court finds, after considering the factors of this case, that the plaintiff should be
permitted to proceed pseudonymously. His suit challenges governmental activity, requires the
disclosure of intimate details relating to both himself and another individual, and centers upon an
2
allegation that he committed a serious crime. Accordingly, the plaintiff should be permitted to
proceed without public disclosure of his identity.
The Court also finds that it is appropriate to use a pseudonym in place of the alleged
victim’s actual name. Though she is not a party to this litigation, it will focus upon, and has already
described in detail, extraordinarily intimate details of a sexual encounter. Her right to privacy with
regard to the events described within the complaint outweighs the public’s right to know her
identity.
Requiring that these two individuals only be referred to using pseudonyms will not
prejudice or pose a threat of fundamental unfairness to Defendants, as they are already aware of
the individuals’ identities. Instead, granting Plaintiff’s motion permits him to proceed without fear
that the suit itself will result in future damages to either himself or Bethany Roe.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is granted. None of his personally identifying information
shall be made public on the Court’s docket. When filing any publicly accessible (i.e. non-sealed
or non-restricted) pleadings or documents, filers (attorneys, interested parties, etc.) shall use the
pseudonym “Andrew Doe” in place of Plaintiff’s actual name and shall not include any personally
identifying information of the plaintiff. Similarly, filers shall use the pseudonym, “Bethany Roe,”
when identifying the student who the University Judicial Council found was sexually assaulted by
Andrew Doe. Filers shall refrain from including any personally identifying information of Bethany
Roe in any publicly accessible filing.
SO ORDERED, this the 6th day of April, 2018.
/s/ F. Keith Ball
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
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?