Doe v. The Alabama Department of Corrections

M.D. Alabama

Doe v. The Alabama Department of Corrections

DecidedSeptember 4, 2024

Docket2:24-cv-00455

StatusUnknown

This text of Doe v. The Alabama Department of Corrections (Doe v. The Alabama Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Doe v. The Alabama Department of Corrections, (M.D. Ala. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

JOHN DOE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL CASE NO. 2:24-cv-455-ECM ) [WO] THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTIONS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

O R D E R

On July 29, 2024, the Plaintiff filed this case under a pseudonym. (Doc. 1). “‘Generally, parties to a lawsuit must identify themselves’ in the pleadings. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) provides that ‘every pleading’ in federal court ‘must name all the parties.’” In re: Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., 965 F.3d 1238, 1247 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 322 (11th Cir. 1992)) (citations omitted). Thus, “Rule 10(a) requires a plaintiff to include the names of all parties in a complaint” to “protect[] the public’s legitimate interest in knowing all of the facts involved, including the identities of the parties.” Frank, 951 F.2d at 322 (citing Doe v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D. 158, 160 (N.D. Cal. 1981) and Doe v. Deschamps, 64 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Mont. 1974)). However, upon motion and in exceptional circumstances, the Court may permit a party to proceed under a fictitious name. See In re: Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., 965 F.3d at 1247 (quoting Frank, 951 F.2d at 323). Accordingly, on August 2, 2024, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to “file an amended complaint disclosing his full legal name or a motion to proceed under a fictitious name with appropriate briefing.” (Doc. 5 at 2). On August 16, 2024, the Plaintiff obliged by filing a motion to proceed under a pseudonym

along with briefing on the issue. (Doc. 6). To date, there is no evidence of service upon the Defendants in the docket, nor is there an appearance by any of the Defendants. Because the Court finds it would be appropriate for the Defendants to weigh-in on this issue, the Court holds the Plaintiff’s motion (doc. 6) in ABEYANCE until such time that the Defendants may be able to provide a response to the Plaintiff’s motion.

Done this 4th day of September, 2024.

/s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

JOHN DOE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL CASE NO. 2:24-cv-455-ECM ) [WO] THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTIONS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

O R D E R

On July 29, 2024, the Plaintiff filed this case under a pseudonym. (Doc. 1). “‘Generally, parties to a lawsuit must identify themselves’ in the pleadings. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) provides that ‘every pleading’ in federal court ‘must name all the parties.’” In re: Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., 965 F.3d 1238, 1247 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 322 (11th Cir. 1992)) (citations omitted). Thus, “Rule 10(a) requires a plaintiff to include the names of all parties in a complaint” to “protect[] the public’s legitimate interest in knowing all of the facts involved, including the identities of the parties.” Frank, 951 F.2d at 322 (citing Doe v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D. 158, 160 (N.D. Cal. 1981) and Doe v. Deschamps, 64 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Mont. 1974)). However, upon motion and in exceptional circumstances, the Court may permit a party to proceed under a fictitious name. See In re: Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., 965 F.3d at 1247 (quoting Frank, 951 F.2d at 323). Accordingly, on August 2, 2024, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to “file an amended complaint disclosing his full legal name or a motion to proceed under a fictitious name with appropriate briefing.” (Doc. 5 at 2). On August 16, 2024, the Plaintiff obliged by filing a motion to proceed under a pseudonym

along with briefing on the issue. (Doc. 6). To date, there is no evidence of service upon the Defendants in the docket, nor is there an appearance by any of the Defendants. Because the Court finds it would be appropriate for the Defendants to weigh-in on this issue, the Court holds the Plaintiff’s motion (doc. 6) in ABEYANCE until such time that the Defendants may be able to provide a response to the Plaintiff’s motion.

Done this 4th day of September, 2024.

/s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Doe v. The Alabama Department of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-the-alabama-department-of-corrections-almd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack