J.M. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 19, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01452
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 J.M., Case No. 1:25-cv-01452-KES-CDB (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF J.M. TO FILE MOTION TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM 13 v. (Doc. 1) 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 10-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff J.M. (“Plaintiff”), a former federal inmate proceeding by counsel, initiated this action 18 with the filing of complaint against Defendant United States of America, Atwater John Does 1 and 2, 19 and Mendota Does 1-5 (collectively, “Defendants”) on October 30, 2025. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff asserts 20 claims against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) and against individual 21 defendants for violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Id. at 6. In the complaint, Plaintiff J.M. 22 alleges that this suit “arises from the assault and sexual assault by [Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)] guards 23 at USP Atwater and the retaliation that followed at FCI Mendota[.]” Id. ¶ 3.1. The Court notes that, 24 while the complaint refers to Plaintiff as “J.M.,” no formal request to proceed in this action 25 pseudonymously has been filed. 26 “[M]any federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have permitted parties to proceed 27 anonymously when special circumstances justify secrecy.” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 28 214 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2000). “In this circuit…parties [may] use pseudonyms in the ‘unusual 1 || case’ when nondisclosure of the party’s identity ‘is necessary...to protect a person from harassmer 2 || injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment.’” Jd. at 1067-68 (quoting United States v. Doe, 655 F. 3 |} 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981)). “[A] district court must balance the need for anonymity against the gener 4 || presumption that parties’ identities are public information and the risk of unfairness to the opposir 5 || party.” Id. at 1068. 6 The Ninth Circuit has identified three situations in which parties have been allowed to □□□□□ 7 || under pseudonyms: “(1) when the identification creates a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm; ( 8 || when anonymity is necessary to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal natur 9 || and (3) when the anonymous party is compelled to admit [his or her] intention to engage in illeg 10 || conduct, thereby risking criminal prosecution[.|” /d. (citations and internal quotations marks omittec 11 || A party requesting to proceed pseudonymously has the burden of showing that their "need for anonymi 12 || outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public's interest in knowing the party’s identity.” / 13 || at 1068-69. 14 Here, Plaintiff has not been granted leave to proceed pseudonymously yet the complaint refe 15 |} to Plaintiff as “J.M.” Because the allegations implicate sensitive information of sexual assault at 16 ||sexual harassment against Plaintiff, and Plaintiff has not yet filed any motion to □□□□□□ 17 || pseudonymously, the Court finds it appropriate to direct Plaintiff to file a motion to proceed using 18 || pseudonym in this action. 19 Conclusion and Order 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within 10 days of entry of this order, Plainti 21 ||J.M. shall file a motion to proceed pseudonymously in this action. Any opposition or statement of no 22 || opposition shall be consistent with Local Rule 230. See Local Rule 230(c) & (d). Following completic 23 || of briefing, the motion will be submitted on the papers without hearing or oral argument. See Loc 24 || Rule 230(g). 25 |11T IS SO ORDERED. 26 □□ Dated: _ December 18, 2025 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28