(PC) Doe 2 v. Johnson ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JANE DOE #2, No. 2:24-cv-01844-DJC-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER APPROVING MINOR’S 14 COMPROMISE MARCUS JOHNSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s ex parte Motion for Administrative Relief 19 to Proceed by Pseudonym.1 Plaintiff seeks to proceed under a pseudonym as the 20 case involves allegations of sexual abuse, which raise issues regarding the privacy and 21 the safety of Plaintiff. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 22 Motion for Administrative Relief to Proceed by Pseudonym (ECF No. 3). However, 23 Defendants may seek reconsideration of the Motion should Defendants object once 24 they have appeared in the case. 25 //// 26 27 1 Plaintiff did not file this Motion explicitly as an ex parte request. However, the Motion 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 LEGAL STANDARD 2 “The normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names.” 3 Doe v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 4 2010); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“[t]he title of the complaint must name all the 5 parties”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(1) (“An action must be prosecuted in the name of the 6 real party in interest.”). The Ninth Circuit has held that “a party may preserve his or her 7 anonymity in judicial proceedings in special circumstances when the party’s need for 8 anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in 9 knowing the party’s identity.” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 10 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). This may be the case where a pseudonym is “necessary . . . 11 to protect a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment.” Id. 12 at 1067–68. “Courts have generally permitted plaintiffs to proceed anonymously 13 when their claims involved allegations of sexual assault or rape.” Doe v. Rose, No. 15- 14 cv-07503-MWF-JC, 2016 WL 9137645, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2016) (collecting 15 cases). 16 DISCUSSION 17 Plaintiff here has brought claims related to sexual abuse allegedly perpetrated 18 by Defendant Marcus Johnson. (See Compl. (ECF No. 1) ¶¶ 25–41.) Plaintiff states 19 that proceeding under a pseudonym will help maintain Plaintiff’s privacy and ensure 20 that Plaintiff does not face retaliation from publicly filing a lawsuit after initially filing 21 grievances that led to investigations. (See Mot. (ECF No. 3) at 2–3.) 22 In light of the above, the Court finds good cause to GRANT Plaintiff’s request at 23 this stage of the proceedings based on the sensitive nature of the allegations and the 24 potential threat of retaliation Plaintiff faces, which outweighs the minimal prejudice 25 Defendants would face because they may obtain Plaintiff’s name from the internal 26 grievances and investigations. However, Defendants may seek reconsideration of the 27 issue should Defendants object once they have appeared in this action. See Doe v. 28 1 County of San Joaquin, 2:24-cv-00899-CKD, 2024 WL 1344677, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 2 | 29, 2024). 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for 5 | Administrative Relief to Proceed by Pseudonym (ECF No. 3), subject to 6 | reconsideration once Defendants have appeared in this action. This matter is referred 7 | back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all further pretrial proceedings. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 | Dated: _September 5, 2024 “Daal J CoO tto— Hon. Daniel alabretta " UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 | DJc3 -menelis.22cv369.minors.compromise 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28