(PC) Doe v. Johnson

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: July 2, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01542
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JANE DOE, No. 2:24-cv-01542-DJC-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER

14 MARCUS JOHNSON, et al.,

15 Defendant. 16

17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s ex parte Motion to Proceed under a 18 Pseudonym.1 Plaintiff seeks to proceed under a pseudonym as the case involves 19 allegations of sexual abuse which raise issues of privacy and safety of Plaintiff. For the 20 reasons stated below, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 2). 21 LEGAL STANDARD 22 “The normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names.” 23 Doe v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 24 2010); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“[t]he title of the complaint must name all the 25 parties”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(1) (“An action must be prosecuted in the name of the 26

27 1 Plaintiff did not file this motion explicitly as an ex parte request. However, it was filed without being noticed on the calendar or proof of service and before Defendants have appeared in the action. 28 Accordingly, the Court will view this, at this stage, as an ex parte motion. 1 real party in interest.”). The Ninth Circuit has held that “a party may preserve his or her 2 anonymity in judicial proceedings in special circumstances when the party’s need for 3 anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in 4 knowing the party’s identity.” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 5 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). This may be the case where a pseudonym is “necessary . . . 6 to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment.” Id. 7 at 1067–68. “Courts have generally permitted plaintiffs to proceed anonymously 8 when their claims involved allegations of sexual assault or rape.” Doe v. Rose, No. 15- 9 cv-07503-MWF-JC, 2016 WL 9137645, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2016) (collecting 10 cases). 11 DISCUSSION 12 Plaintiff here has brought claims partially stemming from sexual abuse allegedly 13 inflicted on her by Defendant Johnson. (See Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 6–7.) The factual 14 allegations include descriptions of “sexual acts she was forced to perform on her 15 abuser . . . .” (Mot. at 3.) Plaintiff states she wants to keep this information private from 16 public filings and that Defendants will know of her identity regardless as a result of 17 filed grievances and resulting a prison investigation. (Id.) She also indicates that she 18 wishes to prevent “retaliatory harm” for reporting staff misconduct which Plaintiff 19 claims is a common concern among California Institution for Women prisoners. (Id.) 20 The Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff’s request at this stage of the 21 proceedings based on the sensitive nature of the allegations and the fact Defendants 22 will not suffer prejudice as Plaintiff’s identity will be known due to her prior grievances. 23 The court will reconsider the issue should Defendants object once they have 24 appeared in this action. See Doe v. County of San Joaquin, 2:24-cv-00899-CKD, 2024 25 WL 1344677, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2024). 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 CONCLUSION 2 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to 3 | Proceed Under Pseudonym (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED, subject to reconsideration 4 | should Defendants object once they have appeared in this action. 5 6 j IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 | Dated: _ July 1, 2024 Donal J Ch brett Hon. Daniel alabretta ? UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 | DJC1- doe24cv01542.pseudonym 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28