Doe et al v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al

Filing 7

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 3 Administrative Motion for Leave to Proceed Under the Pseudonyms Jane Doe, Annie Doe, Bea Doe, and Claire Doe. Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file, under seal, a declaration as to Plaintiffs' true identities. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SB)

Case 2:21-cv-01274-RSM Document 7 Filed 11/18/21 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
JANE DOE, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9
v.

10

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS), et al.,

11

CASE NO. C21-1274 RSM
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO PROCEED UNDER THE
PSEUDONYMS JANE DOE, ANNIE DOE,
BEA DOE, AND CLAIRE DOE

12
Defendants.
13
14

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion for Leave to Proceed

15

Under the Pseudonyms Jane Doe, Annie Doe, Bea Doe, and Claire Doe. Dkt. #1-13.1 For the

16

reasons below, the Court grants the motion.

17

Fearful for their physical safety in their home country of Angola, Plaintiffs Jane Doe and

18

her children, Annie Doe, Bea Doe, and Claire Doe (collectively, the “Doe Children”), fled to the

19

Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2015. Dkt. #1 at ¶ 1. Plaintiff Jane Doe has since traveled

20
21
22
23
24

1

Plaintiffs filed their complaint and several additional filings at the same time. All documents
were filed cumulatively at Dkt. #1. Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed pseudonymously was included
at Dkt. #1-13. The documents were later docketed individually. See Dkts. #2–#6. The text of
the Court’s docket indicates that Plaintiffs’ motion was docketed as Dkt. #3. However, that
appears to be a declaration of counsel which was docketed twice. See Dkts. #3 and #4.
Accordingly, the Court has considered the motion that was originally attached to the complaint
and docketed at Dkt. #1-13.
ORDER – 1

Case 2:21-cv-01274-RSM Document 7 Filed 11/18/21 Page 2 of 4

1

to the United States and has been granted asylum. Id. Upon being granted asylum, Plaintiff Jane

2

Doe filed I-730 Follow-to-Join Asylee Relative Petitions on behalf of the Doe Children. Id. at

3

¶ 2. Those petitions have been approved by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, but

4

travel documents have not been issued by the National Visa Center. Id. Plaintiff Jane Doe

5

accordingly instituted this action to force Defendants to process and issue travel documents. Id.

6

at ¶ 1. Due to the circumstances surrounding their flight from Angola and the danger to the Doe

7

Children posed by their continued presence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Plaintiffs

8

seek approval to use pseudonyms in their prosecution of this action. Dkt. #1-13.

9

Permitting a party to pursue legal proceedings anonymously is unusual as it interferes

10

with the public’s strong common law right of access to judicial proceedings and conflicts with

11

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10. Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058,

12

1067 (9th Cir. 2000); FED. R. CIV. P. 10(a) (specifying that “[t]he title of the complaint must

13

name all the parties”). “[A] party may preserve his or her anonymity in judicial proceedings in

14

special circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing

15

party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity. Does I thru XXIII, 214 F.3d at

16

1068. Anonymity has generally been permitted: “(1) when identification creates a risk of

17

retaliatory physical or mental harm; (2) when anonymity is necessary ‘to preserve privacy in a

18

matter of sensitive and highly personal nature;’ and (3) when the anonymous party is ‘compelled

19

to admit [his or her] intention to engage in illegal conduct.’” Id. (alteration in original) (internal

20

citations omitted). When determining the need for anonymity to protect from harm, courts look

21

to: “(1) the severity of the threatened harm; (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous party’s

22

fears; and (3) the anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation.” Id. (internal citations

23

omitted).

24
ORDER – 2

Case 2:21-cv-01274-RSM Document 7 Filed 11/18/21 Page 3 of 4

1

Here, the Court finds that granting Plaintiffs leave to proceed anonymously is appropriate.

2

First, Plaintiffs do not seek to conceal their true identities from Defendants or the Court,

3

mitigating any prejudice to Defendants. See Dkt. #1-13 at 2 (indicating that “Plaintiffs are

4

prepared to provide a statement of their true identities to the Court and opposing counsel under

5

seal”). Second, Plaintiffs’ action relates to Plaintiff Jane Doe’s asylum claim, which is itself

6

afforded protection by Defendants’ regulations.

7

complaint recounts “details of sexual violence against her and [the Doe Children] when they were

8

minors” and these allegations are bolstered by the fact that Plaintiff Jane Doe was granted asylum

9

due to “her well-founded fear of persecution if she returns to Angola.” Dkt. #1-13 at 3; see also

10

Dkt. #1 at ¶¶ 31–34. Fourth, Plaintiffs indicate that the Doe Children continue to reside in the

11

Democratic Republic of the Congo, a country where the individual at the center of Plaintiff Jane

12

Doe’s asylum claim “has access and influence and could, in theory, find and prosecute Plaintiffs

13

should their identities become public.” Dkt. #1-13 at 5. Fifth, the public’s interest in Plaintiffs’

14

identities is lessened because Plaintiffs’ action does not relate to the underlying basis for Plaintiff

15

Jane Doe’s asylum claim and instead focuses on whether Defendants’ actions complied with

16

applicable laws and administrative procedures. See also International Refugee Assistance

17

Project v. Trump, Case No. TDC-17-0361, 2017 WL 818255 at *3 (D. Md. 2017) (noting

18

decreased public interest in plaintiff’s identify where action was “against the federal government,

19

rather than private parties”). Sixth, and lastly, this Court’s local rules provide interested parties

20

opportunities to make countervailing arguments at later dates. See, e.g., LOCAL RULES W.D.

21

WASH. LCR 5(g)(8).

See 8 C.F.R. § 208.6.

Third, Plaintiffs’

22

The Court notes that there are considerations that cut against permitting Plaintiffs to

23

proceed anonymously. For instance, public access to this matter is already restricted as it relates

24

to immigration matters and the danger to the Plaintiffs is reduced by the passage of time and their
ORDER – 3

Case 2:21-cv-01274-RSM Document 7 Filed 11/18/21 Page 4 of 4

1

escape from Angola. However, the Court finds those considerations outweighed by the factors

2

previously identified by the Court.

3

Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds and ORDERS that

4

Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed anonymously (Dkt. #1-13) is GRANTED. Within fourteen (14)

5

days of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file, under seal, a declaration as to Plaintiffs’ true identities.

6

DATED this 18th day of November, 2021.

7
8

A

9

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER – 4