(PS) Parlante v. American River College ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN PARLANTE, Case No. 2:20-cv-02268-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED USING A PSEUDONYM 13 v. ECF No. 3 14 AMERICAN RIVER COLLEGE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who currently resides in Nevada, is suing a college in California and a student 18 who allegedly attacked him on campus. ECF No. 6. The attacker is unknown to plaintiff. Id. 19 Plaintiff moves to proceed using a pseudonym in this case. ECF No. 4. In support of his motion, 20 he alleges that he is disabled and that publicly disclosing his disability could limit future 21 employment opportunities. Id. at 1. He also claims that his student records, including records of 22 disability, are private. Id. at 2. 23 Parties must litigate under their own names unless a case is “exceptional.” Doe v. Ayers, 24 789 F.3d 944, 946 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). “When a party requests Doe 25 status, the factors to be balanced against the general presumption that parties’ identities are public 26 information, are: (1) the severity of the threatened harm; (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous 27 party’s fears; and (3) the anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation.” Id. at 945 (internal 28 citations and quotation marks omitted). For example, in Ayers, petitioner “(1) was granted 1 | penalty-phase habeas relief based on sealed, graphic evidence regarding repeated sexual assault in 2 | prison, and (2) submitted credible evidence that he would likely be subjected to more violence if 3 | his name was revealed alongside the evidence of this abuse.” Jd. at 946. Allegations to support 4 | pleading with a pseudonym must be supported by evidence. See id.; John Doe v. Fellows, No. 5 | 89-15869, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 3721, at *4 (9th Cir. Mar. 5, 1991) (“Doe’s contention that he 6 | will be subject to police reprisals if his true identity is revealed is without any factual basis and is 7 | insufficient to warrant a cloak of anonymity.”) 8 Here, plaintiff does not allege that repeated violence has been visited against him or that 9 | any violence will continue. Plaintiff asserts that he was attacked once by a stranger and now he 10 | lives in a different state from where the incident occurred. Plaintiff also presents no evidence that 11 | disclosure of his disability will prevent employment. Thus, plaintiff's motion lacks any factual 12 | basis for a finding in his favor. Further, plaintiff's concerns regarding private documents, to the 13 | extent that they are needed for review in this case, can be adequately addressed by redaction and 14 | filing under seal. See Local Rules 140, 141. Plaintiffs case is not an exceptional one that 15 || overrides the presumption that his identity is public information. 16 Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to proceed using a pseudonym, ECF No. 4, is denied. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ( 1 Sty — Dated: _ September 9, 2021 20 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28