H.F. v. Kristi Noem, et al.

E.D. California

H.F. v. Kristi Noem, et al.

DecidedFebruary 13, 2026

Docket1:26-cv-00820

StatusUnknown

This text of H.F. v. Kristi Noem, et al. (H.F. v. Kristi Noem, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

H.F. v. Kristi Noem, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 H.F., Case No. 1:26-cv-00820-JLT-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO PROCEED VIA 13 v. PSEUDONYM

14 KRISTI NOEM, et al., (Doc. 3)

15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner H.F. (“Petitioner”), a federal detainee proceeding by counsel, initiated this action 18 by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a related request for 19 emergency injunctive relief,1 and the pending motion to proceed via pseudonym on January 30, 20 2026. (Docs. 1-3). Petitioner filed the instant petition while in the custody of the Immigration and 21 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the California City Detention Facility in California City, 22 California, which is where he is currently incarcerated. (Doc. 1 ¶ 9). 23 Petitioner’s Unopposed2 Motion to Proceed via Pseudonym 24 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to proceed via pseudonym, filed on January 25

26 1 On January 30, 2026, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. 7). 27 2 Respondents’ failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the 28 pending motion is construed as a non-opposition to the motion. See Local Rule 230(c). 1 30, 2026. (Doc. 3). The motion is submitted on the record without oral argument. See Local Rule 2 230(g). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Petitioner’s unopposed motion. 3 A. Petitioner’s Contentions 4 Petitioner requests the Court to permit him to proceed in this case via pseudonym using his 5 initials and for entry of a protective order protecting his identity and his family from risk of 6 harassment and retaliation. (Doc. 3 at 2). Petitioner asserts that he will disclose his identity to 7 appearing counsel for the government in this case. Id. 8 Petitioner asserts that relevant factors weigh in favor of granting his motion because the 9 public disclosure of his identity and asylum-related information subjects Petitioner and his family 10 to potential retaliatory harm, and there is no risk of prejudice to Defendants. Id. at 4-6. Petitioner 11 contends that allowing him to proceed anonymously here causes no prejudice as his identity is not 12 itself a material fact in the action and that he will disclose his identity to counsel for the government. 13 Id. at 5-6. 14 B. Governing Authority 15 “[M]any federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have permitted parties to proceed 16 anonymously when special circumstances justify secrecy.” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile 17 Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2000). “In this circuit…parties [may] use pseudonyms in the 18 ‘unusual case’ when nondisclosure of the party’s identity ‘is necessary…to protect a person from 19 harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment.’” Id. at 1067-68 (quoting United States v. 20 Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981)). “[A] district court must balance the need for 21 anonymity against the general presumption that parties’ identities are public information and the 22 risk of unfairness to the opposing party.” Id. at 1068. 23 The Ninth Circuit has identified three situations in which parties have been allowed to 24 proceed under pseudonyms: “(1) when the identification creates a risk of retaliatory physical or 25 mental harm; (2) when anonymity is necessary to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and 26 highly personal nature; and (3) when the anonymous party is compelled to admit [his or her] 27 intention to engage in illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal prosecution…” Id. (citations and 28 internal quotations marks omitted). In evaluating such a request, courts should consider the 1 following factors: (1) the severity of the threatened harm; (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous 2 party’s fears; and (3) the anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation. Id. 3 “The court must also determine the precise prejudice at each stage of the proceedings to the 4 opposing party, and whether proceedings may be structured so as to mitigate that prejudice … [as 5 well as] decide whether the public’s interest in the case would be best served by requiring that the 6 litigants reveal their identities.” Id. at 1068-69. “To determine whether to allow a party to proceed 7 anonymously when the opposing party has objected, a district court must balance five factors: ‘(1) 8 the severity of the threatened harm, (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous party’s fears … (3) 9 the anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation,’ (4) the prejudice to the opposing party, 10 and (5) the public interest.’” Doe v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 11 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068). 12 C. Analysis 13 The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s unopposed motion and finds the reasons advanced for 14 proceeding under pseudonym warrant granting the relief requested. Respondents have not 15 identified any actual, threatened, or risk of material prejudice that could result from Petitioner’s use 16 of a pseudonym, and given Petitioner’s concession that he will not withhold his identity from 17 Respondents, the Court finds that Respondents would not suffer prejudice if Petitioner were 18 allowed to proceed under pseudonym. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of Petitioner’s 19 requested relief. See Doe v. Andrews, No. 1:25-cv-00506-SAB-HC, 2025 WL 1856591, at *3 (E.D. 20 Cal. June 26, 2025) (granting request to proceed under pseudonym where respondents “have not 21 attempted to—and cannot—argue that they would suffer any prejudice if Petitioner were allowed 22 to proceed under pseudonym given Petitioner’s identity is known to the Court and Respondents.”). 23 While the Court is mindful of the public’s interest in knowing the identity of the parties, 24 after reviewing the record and considering the nature of the potential harm to which Petitioner may 25 be exposed, the reasonableness of Petitioner’s fears relating to potential retaliatory harm from the 26 public disclosure of his identity and asylum-related information, and any potential prejudice to 27 Respondents, the Court finds that, at this early stage of the litigation, the Petitioner’s need for 28 anonymity outweighs the competing interests. See Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1067-68 1 | (‘In this circuit, we allowed parties to use pseudonyms in the ‘unusual case’ when nondisclosure 2 | of the party’s identity ‘is necessary ... to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule, or 3 | personal embarrassment.’”) (citing United States. v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981)); 4 | Doe v. Andrews, No. 1:25-cv-00333-JLT-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 1531684, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 28, 5 | 2025) (noting that “courts regularly grant leave to proceed under a pseudonym in cases related to 6 | asylum proceedings”) (citing inter alia 8 C.F.R. § 208.6); see also Doe v. Andrews, No. 1:25-cv- 7 | 00680-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 1636053, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2025) (granting immigration 8 | detainee’s pseudonym request, finding no prejudice to Respondent, and noting “Petitioner ... 9 | applied for protection under the Convention Against Torture. He fears persecution and retaliation 10 | from a criminal gang ... he is aware that individuals in Jamaica look for information about him 11 | online. Petitioner’s fears are credible and satisfy the first three factors”). Therefore, the Court will 12 | grant Petitioner’s unopposed motion to proceed under pseudonym in this action.

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 H.F., Case No. 1:26-cv-00820-JLT-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO PROCEED VIA 13 v. PSEUDONYM

14 KRISTI NOEM, et al., (Doc. 3)

15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner H.F. (“Petitioner”), a federal detainee proceeding by counsel, initiated this action 18 by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a related request for 19 emergency injunctive relief,1 and the pending motion to proceed via pseudonym on January 30, 20 2026. (Docs. 1-3). Petitioner filed the instant petition while in the custody of the Immigration and 21 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the California City Detention Facility in California City, 22 California, which is where he is currently incarcerated. (Doc. 1 ¶ 9). 23 Petitioner’s Unopposed2 Motion to Proceed via Pseudonym 24 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to proceed via pseudonym, filed on January 25

26 1 On January 30, 2026, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. 7). 27 2 Respondents’ failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the 28 pending motion is construed as a non-opposition to the motion. See Local Rule 230(c). 1 30, 2026. (Doc. 3). The motion is submitted on the record without oral argument. See Local Rule 2 230(g). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Petitioner’s unopposed motion. 3 A. Petitioner’s Contentions 4 Petitioner requests the Court to permit him to proceed in this case via pseudonym using his 5 initials and for entry of a protective order protecting his identity and his family from risk of 6 harassment and retaliation. (Doc. 3 at 2). Petitioner asserts that he will disclose his identity to 7 appearing counsel for the government in this case. Id. 8 Petitioner asserts that relevant factors weigh in favor of granting his motion because the 9 public disclosure of his identity and asylum-related information subjects Petitioner and his family 10 to potential retaliatory harm, and there is no risk of prejudice to Defendants. Id. at 4-6. Petitioner 11 contends that allowing him to proceed anonymously here causes no prejudice as his identity is not 12 itself a material fact in the action and that he will disclose his identity to counsel for the government. 13 Id. at 5-6. 14 B. Governing Authority 15 “[M]any federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have permitted parties to proceed 16 anonymously when special circumstances justify secrecy.” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile 17 Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2000). “In this circuit…parties [may] use pseudonyms in the 18 ‘unusual case’ when nondisclosure of the party’s identity ‘is necessary…to protect a person from 19 harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment.’” Id. at 1067-68 (quoting United States v. 20 Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981)). “[A] district court must balance the need for 21 anonymity against the general presumption that parties’ identities are public information and the 22 risk of unfairness to the opposing party.” Id. at 1068. 23 The Ninth Circuit has identified three situations in which parties have been allowed to 24 proceed under pseudonyms: “(1) when the identification creates a risk of retaliatory physical or 25 mental harm; (2) when anonymity is necessary to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and 26 highly personal nature; and (3) when the anonymous party is compelled to admit [his or her] 27 intention to engage in illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal prosecution…” Id. (citations and 28 internal quotations marks omitted). In evaluating such a request, courts should consider the 1 following factors: (1) the severity of the threatened harm; (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous 2 party’s fears; and (3) the anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation. Id. 3 “The court must also determine the precise prejudice at each stage of the proceedings to the 4 opposing party, and whether proceedings may be structured so as to mitigate that prejudice … [as 5 well as] decide whether the public’s interest in the case would be best served by requiring that the 6 litigants reveal their identities.” Id. at 1068-69. “To determine whether to allow a party to proceed 7 anonymously when the opposing party has objected, a district court must balance five factors: ‘(1) 8 the severity of the threatened harm, (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous party’s fears … (3) 9 the anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation,’ (4) the prejudice to the opposing party, 10 and (5) the public interest.’” Doe v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 11 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068). 12 C. Analysis 13 The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s unopposed motion and finds the reasons advanced for 14 proceeding under pseudonym warrant granting the relief requested. Respondents have not 15 identified any actual, threatened, or risk of material prejudice that could result from Petitioner’s use 16 of a pseudonym, and given Petitioner’s concession that he will not withhold his identity from 17 Respondents, the Court finds that Respondents would not suffer prejudice if Petitioner were 18 allowed to proceed under pseudonym. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of Petitioner’s 19 requested relief. See Doe v. Andrews, No. 1:25-cv-00506-SAB-HC, 2025 WL 1856591, at *3 (E.D. 20 Cal. June 26, 2025) (granting request to proceed under pseudonym where respondents “have not 21 attempted to—and cannot—argue that they would suffer any prejudice if Petitioner were allowed 22 to proceed under pseudonym given Petitioner’s identity is known to the Court and Respondents.”). 23 While the Court is mindful of the public’s interest in knowing the identity of the parties, 24 after reviewing the record and considering the nature of the potential harm to which Petitioner may 25 be exposed, the reasonableness of Petitioner’s fears relating to potential retaliatory harm from the 26 public disclosure of his identity and asylum-related information, and any potential prejudice to 27 Respondents, the Court finds that, at this early stage of the litigation, the Petitioner’s need for 28 anonymity outweighs the competing interests. See Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1067-68 1 | (‘In this circuit, we allowed parties to use pseudonyms in the ‘unusual case’ when nondisclosure 2 | of the party’s identity ‘is necessary ... to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule, or 3 | personal embarrassment.’”) (citing United States. v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981)); 4 | Doe v. Andrews, No. 1:25-cv-00333-JLT-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 1531684, at *1 (E.D. Cal. May 28, 5 | 2025) (noting that “courts regularly grant leave to proceed under a pseudonym in cases related to 6 | asylum proceedings”) (citing inter alia 8 C.F.R. § 208.6); see also Doe v. Andrews, No. 1:25-cv- 7 | 00680-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 1636053, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2025) (granting immigration 8 | detainee’s pseudonym request, finding no prejudice to Respondent, and noting “Petitioner ... 9 | applied for protection under the Convention Against Torture. He fears persecution and retaliation 10 | from a criminal gang ... he is aware that individuals in Jamaica look for information about him 11 | online. Petitioner’s fears are credible and satisfy the first three factors”). Therefore, the Court will 12 | grant Petitioner’s unopposed motion to proceed under pseudonym in this action. 13 Conclusion and Order 14 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 15 1. Petitioner’s unopposed motion to proceed via pseudonym (Doc. 3) is GRANTED. All 16 parties and their counsel shall use the pseudonym “H.F.” in place of Petitioner’s legal 17 name in all future pleadings and papers filed in this action; and 18 2. The parties are prohibited from disclosing or publishing the true name of the Petitioner 19 except by order of this Court and as necessary toward the prosecution or defense of the 20 case. 21 | ITISSO ORDERED. 22 Dated: _ February 13, 2026 | Mw Vv RY 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

H.F. v. Kristi Noem, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hf-v-kristi-noem-et-al-caed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack