Doe v. Blinken ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, No. 2:22-cv-01841 WBS CKD 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM 15 ANTONY J. BLINKEN, in his AND REQUEST TO SEAL official capacity as U.S. 16 Secretary of State; JULIE M. STUFFT, in her official capacity 17 as Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary and Managing Director 18 for Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs; JONATHAN K. 19 WEBSTER, in his official capacity as Consul General of 20 the U.S. Embassy Abu Dhabi; and UR MENDOZA JADDOU, in her 21 official capacity as Director of USCIS, 22 Defendants. 23 24 ----oo0oo---- 25 This mandamus action seeks to compel defendants to 26 issue a decision on plaintiff Jane Doe’s derivative asylum 27 application. Plaintiffs now move unopposed to proceed under 28 1 pseudonyms and request to seal a document inadvertently filed 2 with an unredacted name. (Docket Nos. 2, 7.) 3 Rule 10(a) provides that “the complaint must name all 4 the parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). “The normal presumption in 5 litigation is that parties must use their real names.” Doe v. 6 Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 7 (9th Cir. 2010). However, a party may proceed under pseudonym 8 “in special circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity 9 outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s 10 interest in knowing the party’s identity,” including when 11 necessary to “‘protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule 12 or personal embarrassment.’” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced 13 Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 14 United States v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981)); see 15 also United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1012 (9th Cir. 16 2008). 17 Plaintiffs argue that it is necessary to proceed under 18 pseudonyms because Jane Doe and their families face a risk of 19 religious persecution In Iran if their real names are used. 20 (Def.’s Mem. (Docket No. 2-1) at 2.) Plaintiff John Doe is a 21 lawful permanent resident of the United States. (Decl. of John 22 Doe (“Doe Decl.”) (Docket No. 2-2) ¶ 1.) He is a native of Iran 23 who converted to Christianity and was granted asylum in 2016 due 24 to a risk of religious persecution if he returned to Iran. (Id. 25 ¶¶ 1, 7, 9-10.) However, plaintiff Jane Doe, John Doe’s wife, 26 currently resides in Iran because her derivative asylum 27 application is pending. (Id. ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs “are very 28 secretive” about John Doe’s religious conversion and asylum, 1 “even to [their] family members because of the consequences to 2 [Jane Doe].” (Id. ¶ 21.) It is “illegal in Iran for a Muslim 3 woman to be married to a non-Muslim man.” (Id. ¶ 20.) As such, 4 if Jane Doe’s family were to learn of her husband’s religious 5 conversion, she would “very likely . . . be forced to divorce 6 [him] under Iranian Law.” (Id. ¶ 23.) Further, if the Iranian 7 government were to learn of John Doe’s conversion, his wife and 8 both plaintiffs’ families residing in Iran would be at risk of 9 religious persecution, including “house raids, physical violence, 10 harassment, and arrests.” (Id. ¶ 24.) 11 The court finds that the risk of religious persecution 12 to Jane Doe in Iran, outweighs the public’s interest in knowing 13 the parties’ identities. See Does I thru XXIII, 214 F.3d at 14 1067-68. Plaintiffs’ fear of persecution is reasonable based on 15 their membership in a vulnerable religious minority and the 16 severity of the potential harm, which includes possible 17 harassment and physical violence. See Advanced Textile Corp., 18 214 F.3d at 1069 (The court “conclude[s], based on the extreme 19 nature of the retaliation threatened against plaintiffs coupled 20 with their highly vulnerable status, that plaintiffs reasonably 21 fear severe retaliation, and that this fear outweighs the 22 interests in favor of open judicial proceedings.”) 23 The government has found this threat of persecution to 24 be credible, as it granted John Doe asylum. (See Doe Decl. ¶¶ 9- 25 10.) The risk to plaintiffs’ family members living in Iran also 26 weighs in favor of granting plaintiffs’ request. See id. at 1070 27 (finding that district court abused discretion in denying motion 28 to proceed under pseudonym where plaintiffs feared reprisal 1 against family members living in China). 2 Plaintiffs have expressed willingness to disclose their 3 true identities to the court and opposing counsel under seal, and 4 do not otherwise request that court filings be sealed. (See 5 Def.’s Mem. at 2.) Party anonymity therefore will “not 6 significantly obstruct the public’s view of issues . . . or the 7 court’s performance in resolving them.’” Doe v. Ayers, 789 F.3d 8 944, 946 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Advanced Textile Corp., 214 9 F.3d at 1068) (alterations adopted). There also does not appear 10 to be any risk of prejudice to the defendants, who have not 11 opposed the motion and would be privy to plaintiffs’ true 12 identities. 13 In light of the foregoing, “[n]o factors weigh against 14 concealing plaintiffs’ identities.” See Advanced Textile Corp., 15 214 F.3d at 1069. See also Doe v. Risch, 398 F. Supp. 3d 647, 16 647 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (noting that the court had previously 17 granted permission to proceed under pseudonyms for Christians and 18 other religious minorities from Iran); Jane Doe 1 v. Nielsen, 357 19 F. Supp. 3d 972, 980 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (same); Doe v. Dordoni, 806 20 F. App’x 417, 418 (6th Cir. 2020) (noting that the district court 21 allowed Christian plaintiff from Saudi Arabia to proceed under 22 pseudonym due to fear of religious persecution). Accordingly, 23 plaintiffs’ motion will be granted. 24 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for 25 leave to proceed under pseudonym (Docket No. 2) and request to 26 seal (Docket No. 7) be, and the same hereby are, GRANTED. 27 Pursuant to Local Rule 141, the unredacted Exhibit B (Docket No. 28 1-2) shall be SEALED until further order of this Court. enn nen en een ee OE I OE ES OIE EI OD EE 1 | Dated: November 17, 2022 bt bheow th. □□□ bE— WILLIAM B. SHUBB 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28