Angilau et al v. USA et al
ORDER denying 99 Motion to Amend/Correct 2 Complaint, and Memorandum in Support to Replace Defendant "Jane Doe" With Said Defendant's True Identity. Signed by Judge John E. Dowdell on 2/15/2018. (jwt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
MAVENI ANGILAU et al.,
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. 2:16-CV-00992-JED
Before the Court is “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Replace
Defendant ‘Jane Doe’ With Said Defendant’s True Identity” (Doc. 99). In their Complaint,
Plaintiffs acknowledged the need to protect Jane Doe’s identity, alleging that “Jane Doe’s identity
is known, but she is listed here as ‘Jane Doe’ to protect her privacy.” (Doc. 2 at 8, n.1). Thereafter,
the identity of Jane Doe, the United States Deputy Marshal who is a defendant in this action, has
remained protected by virtue of safety concerns and fears of retaliation by the Tongan Crips Gang.
(Doc. 32). Plaintiffs now contend that the Court should authorize amendment to identify the
Marshal because “Plaintiffs believe the gang is no longer active in Utah” and there is thus no
evidence of danger. (Doc. 99 at 6-7).
The government has provided evidentiary submissions indicating a continuing danger, as
well as recent, specific threats, which justify continuing to protect the identity of Jane Doe. (See
Doc. 103). The Court finds that this is one of those “exceptional cases involving matters of . . .
real danger of physical harm, or where . . . injury . . . would be incurred as a result of the disclosure
of the [party’s] identity.” See M.M. and Zavaras, 139 F.3d 798, 803 (10th Cir. 1998) (quoting Doe
v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 324 (11th Cir. 1992). In addition, the Plaintiffs have not identified any
necessity or purpose for naming the marshal who has been known as Jane Doe throughout this
case. Accordingly, the Motion to Amend (Doc. 99) is denied.
SO ORDERED this 15th day of February, 2018.
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?