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

Opinion

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA J.M., Case No. 1:25-cv-01452-KES-CDB (PC)

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