1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 C.A.R.V., Case No. 1:25-cv-01395-JLT-SKO
12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO PROCEED VIA 13 PSEUDONYM AS TO PETITIONER C.A.R.V. v. 14 (Doc. 3) MINGA WOFFORD, ET AL., 15
16 Respondents.
17 18 C.A.R.V., a federal detainee proceeding through counsel, initiated this action by filing a 19 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a related request for emergency 20 injunctive relief, and the pending motion to proceed via pseudonym on October 20, 2025. (Docs. 21 1-3). Petitioner filed the instant petition while in the custody of the Immigration and Customs 22 Enforcement at the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center in Bakersfield, California. (Doc. 14 at 3.) 23 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to proceed via pseudonym, filed on 24 October 20, 2025, which Respondents do not oppose. (Doc. 3.) The motion is submitted on the 25 record and briefs without oral argument. See Local Rule 230(g). For the reasons set forth below, 26 the Court will GRANT Petitioner’s unopposed motion. 27 /// 28 /// 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 “[M]any federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have permitted parties to proceed 3 anonymously when special circumstances justify secrecy.” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile 4 Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2000). “In this circuit…parties [may] use pseudonyms in the 5 ‘unusual case’ when nondisclosure of the party’s identity ‘is necessary…to protect a person from 6 harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment.’” Id. at 1067-68 (quoting United States v. 7 Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981)). “[A] district court must balance the need for 8 anonymity against the general presumption that parties’ identities are public information and the 9 risk of unfairness to the opposing party.” Id. at 1068. 10 The Ninth Circuit has identified three situations in which parties have been allowed to 11 proceed under pseudonyms: “(1) when the identification creates a risk of retaliatory physical or 12 mental harm; (2) when anonymity is necessary to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and 13 highly personal nature; and (3) when the anonymous party is compelled to admit [his or her] 14 intention to engage in illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal prosecution…” Id. (citations and 15 internal quotations marks omitted). In evaluating such a request, courts should consider the 16 following factors: (1) the severity of the threatened harm; (2) the reasonableness of the 17 anonymous party’s fears; and (3) the anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation. Id. 18 “The court must also determine the precise prejudice at each stage of the proceedings to 19 the opposing party, and whether proceedings may be structured so as to mitigate that prejudice … 20 [as well as] decide whether the public’s interest in the case would be best served by requiring that 21 the litigants reveal their identities.” Id. at 1068-69. “To determine whether to allow a party to 22 proceed anonymously when the opposing party has objected, a district court must balance five 23 factors: ‘(1) the severity of the threatened harm, (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous party’s 24 fears … (3) the anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation,’ (4) the prejudice to the 25 opposing party, and (5) the public interest.’” Doe v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop 26 Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068). 27 /// 28 /// 1 II. ANALYSIS 2 Petitioner requests the Court permit him to proceed in this case via pseudonym using his 3 initials to protect his identity and his family from risk of harassment and retaliation. (Doc. 3 at 2). 4 Petitioner asserts that he will disclose his identity to appearing counsel for the government in this 5 case. Id. Petitioner asserts that he should not be required to expose himself to retaliation, public 6 vitriol, or further harm to vindicate his legal rights. Id. 7 Petitioner asserts that relevant factors weigh in favor of granting his motion because the 8 litigation concerns information of a sensitive and highly personal nature, there is no risk of 9 prejudice to Defendants, and allowing him to proceed under pseudonym is in the public interest. 10 Id. at 3-4. Specifically, Petitioner argues that this litigation may require disclosure of his highly 11 personal private mental and physical health information and the disclosure of such “could lead to 12 stigma and further harm” to Petitioner. Id. at 3. 13 Furthermore, Petitioner contends that allowing him to proceed anonymously here causes 14 no prejudice as his identity is not itself a material fact in the action and that he will disclose his 15 identity to counsel for the government upon counsel’s appearance. Id. at 4. Lastly, Petitioner 16 contends that the public interest weighs in favor of allowing him to proceed using a pseudonym 17 as the ramifications of forcing him to reveal his identity publicly to pursue his claims arising from 18 government misconduct “would be sweeping and would limit access to the courts for any citizen 19 with a legitimate fear of mistreatment or retaliation by the government.” Id. at 4-5. 20 The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s unopposed motion and finds the reasons advanced for 21 proceeding under pseudonym warrant granting the relief requested. As Respondents do not 22 oppose Petitioner’s request to proceed pseudonymously and do not identify any actual, 23 threatened, or risk of material prejudice that could result from Petitioner’s use of a pseudonym, 24 and given Petitioner provides in his request that he does not seek to withhold his identity from 25 Respondents, the Court finds that Respondents would not suffer any prejudice if Petitioner were 26 allowed to proceed under pseudonym. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of Petitioner’s 27 requested relief. See Doe v. Andrews, No. 1:25-CV-00506-SAB-HC, 2025 WL 1856591, at *3 28 (E.D. Cal. June 26, 2025) (granting request to proceed under pseudonym where respondents 1 “have not attempted to—and cannot—argue that they would suffer any prejudice if Petitioner 2 were allowed to proceed under pseudonym given Petitioner’s identity is known to the Court and 3 Respondents.”). 4 Though the Court is mindful of the public’s interest in knowing the identity of the parties, 5 after reviewing the record and considering the nature of the potential harm to which Petitioner 6 may be exposed, the reasonableness of Petitioner’s fears relating to the sensitive nature of private 7 mental and physical health information at issue, and any potential prejudice to Respondents as 8 well as the public’s interest in this action, the Court finds that, at this early stage of the litigation, 9 the Petitioner’s need for anonymity outweighs the competing interests. See Advanced Textile 10 Corp., 214 F.3d at 1067-68 (“In this circuit, we allowed parties to use pseudonyms in the 11 ‘unusual case’ when nondisclosure of the party’s identity ‘is necessary … to protect a person 12 from harassment, injury, ridicule, or personal embarrassment.’”) (citing United States. v. Doe, 13 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981)); Doe v. Andrews, No. 1:25-CV-00333-JLT-HBK (HC), 14 2025 WL 1531684 (E.D. Cal.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 C.A.R.V., Case No. 1:25-cv-01395-JLT-SKO
12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO PROCEED VIA 13 PSEUDONYM AS TO PETITIONER C.A.R.V. v. 14 (Doc. 3) MINGA WOFFORD, ET AL., 15
16 Respondents.
17 18 C.A.R.V., a federal detainee proceeding through counsel, initiated this action by filing a 19 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a related request for emergency 20 injunctive relief, and the pending motion to proceed via pseudonym on October 20, 2025. (Docs. 21 1-3). Petitioner filed the instant petition while in the custody of the Immigration and Customs 22 Enforcement at the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center in Bakersfield, California. (Doc. 14 at 3.) 23 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to proceed via pseudonym, filed on 24 October 20, 2025, which Respondents do not oppose. (Doc. 3.) The motion is submitted on the 25 record and briefs without oral argument. See Local Rule 230(g). For the reasons set forth below, 26 the Court will GRANT Petitioner’s unopposed motion. 27 /// 28 /// 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 “[M]any federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have permitted parties to proceed 3 anonymously when special circumstances justify secrecy.” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile 4 Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2000). “In this circuit…parties [may] use pseudonyms in the 5 ‘unusual case’ when nondisclosure of the party’s identity ‘is necessary…to protect a person from 6 harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment.’” Id. at 1067-68 (quoting United States v. 7 Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981)). “[A] district court must balance the need for 8 anonymity against the general presumption that parties’ identities are public information and the 9 risk of unfairness to the opposing party.” Id. at 1068. 10 The Ninth Circuit has identified three situations in which parties have been allowed to 11 proceed under pseudonyms: “(1) when the identification creates a risk of retaliatory physical or 12 mental harm; (2) when anonymity is necessary to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and 13 highly personal nature; and (3) when the anonymous party is compelled to admit [his or her] 14 intention to engage in illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal prosecution…” Id. (citations and 15 internal quotations marks omitted). In evaluating such a request, courts should consider the 16 following factors: (1) the severity of the threatened harm; (2) the reasonableness of the 17 anonymous party’s fears; and (3) the anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation. Id. 18 “The court must also determine the precise prejudice at each stage of the proceedings to 19 the opposing party, and whether proceedings may be structured so as to mitigate that prejudice … 20 [as well as] decide whether the public’s interest in the case would be best served by requiring that 21 the litigants reveal their identities.” Id. at 1068-69. “To determine whether to allow a party to 22 proceed anonymously when the opposing party has objected, a district court must balance five 23 factors: ‘(1) the severity of the threatened harm, (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous party’s 24 fears … (3) the anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation,’ (4) the prejudice to the 25 opposing party, and (5) the public interest.’” Doe v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop 26 Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068). 27 /// 28 /// 1 II. ANALYSIS 2 Petitioner requests the Court permit him to proceed in this case via pseudonym using his 3 initials to protect his identity and his family from risk of harassment and retaliation. (Doc. 3 at 2). 4 Petitioner asserts that he will disclose his identity to appearing counsel for the government in this 5 case. Id. Petitioner asserts that he should not be required to expose himself to retaliation, public 6 vitriol, or further harm to vindicate his legal rights. Id. 7 Petitioner asserts that relevant factors weigh in favor of granting his motion because the 8 litigation concerns information of a sensitive and highly personal nature, there is no risk of 9 prejudice to Defendants, and allowing him to proceed under pseudonym is in the public interest. 10 Id. at 3-4. Specifically, Petitioner argues that this litigation may require disclosure of his highly 11 personal private mental and physical health information and the disclosure of such “could lead to 12 stigma and further harm” to Petitioner. Id. at 3. 13 Furthermore, Petitioner contends that allowing him to proceed anonymously here causes 14 no prejudice as his identity is not itself a material fact in the action and that he will disclose his 15 identity to counsel for the government upon counsel’s appearance. Id. at 4. Lastly, Petitioner 16 contends that the public interest weighs in favor of allowing him to proceed using a pseudonym 17 as the ramifications of forcing him to reveal his identity publicly to pursue his claims arising from 18 government misconduct “would be sweeping and would limit access to the courts for any citizen 19 with a legitimate fear of mistreatment or retaliation by the government.” Id. at 4-5. 20 The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s unopposed motion and finds the reasons advanced for 21 proceeding under pseudonym warrant granting the relief requested. As Respondents do not 22 oppose Petitioner’s request to proceed pseudonymously and do not identify any actual, 23 threatened, or risk of material prejudice that could result from Petitioner’s use of a pseudonym, 24 and given Petitioner provides in his request that he does not seek to withhold his identity from 25 Respondents, the Court finds that Respondents would not suffer any prejudice if Petitioner were 26 allowed to proceed under pseudonym. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of Petitioner’s 27 requested relief. See Doe v. Andrews, No. 1:25-CV-00506-SAB-HC, 2025 WL 1856591, at *3 28 (E.D. Cal. June 26, 2025) (granting request to proceed under pseudonym where respondents 1 “have not attempted to—and cannot—argue that they would suffer any prejudice if Petitioner 2 were allowed to proceed under pseudonym given Petitioner’s identity is known to the Court and 3 Respondents.”). 4 Though the Court is mindful of the public’s interest in knowing the identity of the parties, 5 after reviewing the record and considering the nature of the potential harm to which Petitioner 6 may be exposed, the reasonableness of Petitioner’s fears relating to the sensitive nature of private 7 mental and physical health information at issue, and any potential prejudice to Respondents as 8 well as the public’s interest in this action, the Court finds that, at this early stage of the litigation, 9 the Petitioner’s need for anonymity outweighs the competing interests. See Advanced Textile 10 Corp., 214 F.3d at 1067-68 (“In this circuit, we allowed parties to use pseudonyms in the 11 ‘unusual case’ when nondisclosure of the party’s identity ‘is necessary … to protect a person 12 from harassment, injury, ridicule, or personal embarrassment.’”) (citing United States. v. Doe, 13 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981)); Doe v. Andrews, No. 1:25-CV-00333-JLT-HBK (HC), 14 2025 WL 1531684 (E.D. Cal. May 28, 2025) (noting that “Courts regularly grant leave to proceed 15 under a pseudonym in cases related to asylum proceedings,” collecting cases, and granting 16 immigration detainee’s pseudonym request) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.6); see also Doe v. Andrews, 17 No. 1:25-CV-00680-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 1636053, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2025) (granting 18 immigration detainee’s pseudonym request, finding no prejudice to Respondent, and noting 19 “Petitioner … applied for protection under the Convention Against Torture. He fears persecution 20 and retaliation from a criminal gang … he is aware that individuals in Jamaica look for 21 information about him online. Petitioner’s fears are credible and satisfy the first three factors”). 22 Therefore, the Court will grant Petitioner’s unopposed motion to proceed under pseudonym in 23 this action. 24 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 25 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 26 1. Petitioner’s unopposed motion to proceed via pseudonym (Doc. 3) is GRANTED. 27 All parties and their counsel shall use the pseudonym “C.A.R.V.” in place of 28 Petitioner’s legal name in all future pleadings and papers filed in this action; and enn ne eee IEEE III IER II OE IIE
1 2. The parties are prohibited from disclosing or publishing the true name of the Petitioner 2 except by order of this Court and as necessary toward the prosecution or defense of 3 the case. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: _ January 27, 2026 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28