P.T. v. Laura Hermosillo, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 12, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02249
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 P.T., CASE NO. C25-2249-BAT-KKE

8 Petitioner(s), ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S v. MOTION TO PROCEED 9 PSEUDONYMOUSLY LAURA HERMOSILLO, et al., 10 Respondent(s). 11 Petitioner filed a habeas petition on November 11, 2025 (Dkt. No. 1), and concurrently 12 filed a motion for an expedited briefing schedule (Dkt. No. 2), a motion for a temporary restraining 13 order (Dkt. No. 3), and this motion to proceed pseudonymously. Dkt. No. 4. Petitioner is an 14 asylum seeker from India who fears government persecution in India, and he filed a habeas petition 15 alleging that his recent re-detention violates his due process rights. Id. at 1. Petitioner argues that 16 he “should not be required to expose himself to retaliation or further harm in order to vindicate his 17 legal rights.” Id. at 2. 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) requires that a “complaint must name all the 19 parties[.]” Therefore, “[t]he normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real 20 names.” Doe v. Kamehameha Schs./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 21 2010). The Ninth Circuit permits parties “to use pseudonyms in the unusual case when 22 nondisclosure of the party’s identity is necessary ... to protect a person from harassment, injury, 23 ridicule or personal embarrassment.” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 24 1 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation modified). Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit directs district courts 2 to apply a “balancing test” in exercising their discretion to determine whether “the party’s need 3 for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the

4 party’s identity.” Id. at 1068. The Ninth Circuit provides the following factors to evaluate the 5 need for anonymity: “(1) the severity of the threatened harm, (2) the reasonableness of the 6 anonymous party’s fears, and (3) the anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation.” Id. at 7 1067–68 (citation modified). Courts must also consider “whether proceedings may be structured 8 so as to mitigate [the] prejudice [at each stage of the proceedings to the opposing party]” and 9 “decide whether the public’s interest in the case would be best served by requiring the litigants 10 reveal their identities.” Id. at 1068. 11 Here, all factors weigh in favor of granting Petitioner’s motion. Petitioner’s motion 12 describes his reasonable fears of severe harm due to his status as an asylum seeker, and states that

13 his status makes him particularly vulnerable to such harm. Dkt. No. 4 at 4–5. Petitioner has also 14 offered that his counsel will promptly notify Respondents’ counsel of Petitioner’s true identity and 15 alien registration number as soon as they appear in this case, which mitigates prejudice to 16 Respondents. Id. at 5. And lastly, the public interest favors allowing Petitioner to safely pursue 17 this action to enforce his constitutional rights. 18 As such, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to proceed pseudonymously, at this stage 19 of the proceedings. Dkt. No. 4. The Court resolves this motion without prejudice to Respondents 20 opposing Petitioner’s motion later in the proceedings, once they have appeared. 21 Dated this 12th day of November, 2025. 22 A 23 Kymberly K. Evanson 24 United States District Judge