Echeverria v. Barr

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 26, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-02917
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOHN DOE, Case No. 20-cv-02917-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PETITIONER’S MOTION 9 v. TO PROCEED UNDER A PSEUDONYM 10 WILLIAM BARR, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 5 Defendants. 11

12 13 Petitioner John Doe is a citizen and national of El Salvador who has resided in the United 14 States since 2011. He has been detained at the Yuba County Jail in Marysville, California since 15 August 2019 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). On April 29, 2020, Petitioner filed a writ of habeas 16 corpus alleging that his detention violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights.1 (Dkt. No. 4.) 17 Along with his habeas petition, he filed a motion to proceed under a pseudonym because of his 18 status as an asylum seeker and because his petition discusses his mental health diagnosis. (Dkt. 19 No. 5.) The government opposes Petitioner’s motion to proceed under a pseudonym because 20 since Petitioner filed this habeas petition, he filed an application for release as a class member in 21 Zepeda-Rivas v. Jennings, No. 20-02731 VC (N.D. Cal.) (“Zepeda-Rivas”), using his real name 22 and including details about his asylum application and his mental health conditions. (Dkt. No. 23 20.) The Court requested Petitioner to file a reply to address the issues raised in the government’s 24 opposition brief. Petitioner has since done so. (Dkt. Nos. 29 & 30.) Having considered the 25 parties’ briefs, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to proceed under a pseudonym, but 26

27 1 All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1 GRANTS his alternative request for sealing of documents attached to his habeas petition, 2 including his medical records. 3 DISCUSSION 4 “The normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names.” Doe v. 5 Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010); see 6 also Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a)(requiring that the title of every complaint “include the names of all the 7 parties). This presumption is related to the public’s common law right of access to judicial 8 proceedings, Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2000), 9 and “the right of private individuals to confront their accusers,” Kamehameha Schools, 596 F.3d at 10 1042. Nevertheless, a party may proceed anonymously when “special circumstances justify 11 secrecy.” Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1067. “Parties may use pseudonyms in the unusual 12 case when nondisclosure of the party’s identity is necessary ... to protect a person from 13 harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment.” Id. at 1067-1068. A party may preserve 14 his or her anonymity 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.” Id. at 1068. District Courts have 16 broad discretion to determine whether a plaintiff may proceed anonymously. Advanced Textile 17 Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068; Kamehameha Schools, 596 F.3d at 1045-1046. 18 Plaintiff requests leave to proceed anonymously in this action because he is concerned 19 about disclosure of information regarding his mental health diagnosis and his status as an asylum 20 seeker. However, since he filed his request to proceed under a pseudonym, he filed an application 21 for release in Zepeda-Rivas under his real name. The application for release identified him as an 22 asylum seeker, the basis for his asylum claim, and disclosed his diagnosis of schizophrenia and 23 adjustment disorder. See Zepeda-Rivas, No. 20-02731, Dkt. No. 77-3. Indeed, his mental health 24 diagnosis was a focus of his motion for release. Given that Petitioner’s name, status as an asylum 25 seeker, and mental health conditions are already part of the public record in Zepeda-Rivas, there is 26 no good cause to allow him to proceed anonymously here. However, there is good cause to file 27 his medical records as contained in Exhibits B, C. F to the Wagman Declaration under seal. 1 records. Eric P. v. Directors Guild of Am., No. 19-CV-00361-WHO, 2020 WL 1531339, at *7 2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2020); see Heldt v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2018 WL 5920029, at *2 3 (S.D. Cal. 2018) (“Documents containing specific medical information may be filed under seal.” 4 .. “The need to protect medical privacy qualifies as a ‘compelling reason’ to seal documents”). 5 CONCLUSION 6 For the reasons stated above, Petitioner’s motion to proceed under a pseudonym is 7 DENIED, but his alternative request to seal portions of the documents submitted with his habeas 8 petition is GRANTED. Exhibits B, C, and F to the Wagman Declaration are sealed and shall 9 remain locked on the docket. (Dkt. Nos. 4-5, 4-6, and 4-9.) 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 12 Dated: May 26, 2020

ne

ACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE I5 United States Magistrate Judge 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28