Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-02248/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-02248-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of 

Minor A, Minor B, and Minor C,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BUTTE COUNTY PROBATION 

DEPARTMENT, ROXANNE LARA, and 

DAWN HOROWITZ-PERSON,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-02248-TLN-DMC

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff John Doe’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Proceed Under 

Pseudonyms and to Redact or Seal Identifying Documents (“Pseudonym Motion”). (ECF No. 2.)

Defendants Butte County Probation Department (“BCPD”), Deputy Probation Officer Roxanne 

Lara (“Lara”), and Dawn Horowitz-Person (“Horowitz-Person”) (collectively, “Defendants”) 

have all filed Statements of Non-Opposition to the Motion. (ECF Nos. 20, 25.) Plaintiff filed a 

Reply. (ECF No. 26.) 

Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“PI”), in which 

Plaintiff seeks an order continuing the Court’s December 9, 2020 Temporary Restraining Order 

(“TRO”) temporarily enjoining Defendants from revealing Plaintiff’s identity, and permitting 

///

Case 2:20-cv-02248-DJC-DMC Document 28 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Plaintiff and Minors A, B, and C to proceed under pseudonym until the Court issues a ruling on 

Plaintiff’s pending Pseudonym Motion.1 (See ECF No. 10; ECF No. 10-1 at 21–22.) 

For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s Pseudonym Motion is GRANTED. (ECF No. 

2.) Plaintiff’s Motion for PI is GRANTED and the PI is DISCHARGED. (ECF No. 10.) 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was arrested for possession of child pornography in 2014. (ECF No. 1 at 2; see 

also ECF No. 17 at 21.) Plaintiff’s criminal trial, in which Plaintiff proceeded under his real 

name, was highly-publicized. (See ECF No. 2-1 at 2.) During that time, Plaintiff’s home address 

and the identities of his wife and children were also made known to the general public, and many 

people stopped by the family home, banging on the door, looking through the windows, hanging 

out on the front yard, and terrifying the children. (Id.; see also ECF No. 2-2 at 2.) Plaintiff 

asserts he received harassing phone calls and emails, as well as hundreds of online hate 

comments, some of which included death threats. (ECF No. 2-1 at 2.) Some online 

commentators also questioned what Plaintiff would think if a similar crime were to happen to 

Plaintiff’s own children, which Plaintiff believes was meant as an implicit threat to harm his 

children. (See id. at 2–3.) 

Plaintiff was convicted of possession of child pornography by jury trial in state court in 

2019 and sentenced to serve five years in state prison under the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), to register as a sex offender, and to pay 

a fine. (See ECF No. 10-1 at 7; see also ECF No. 17 at 21.) Plaintiff was released approximately 

nineteen months later on “Post-Release Community Supervision” (“PRCS”). (ECF No. 10-1 at 7; 

see also ECF No. 17 at 88–91.) Plaintiff asserts CDCR initially indicated he would be subject 

only to the general PRCS conditions mandated by the Postrelease Community Supervision Act of 

2011 (Cal. Pen. Code §§ 3450–3465) (“PRCS Act”) and not any special conditions, but that 

BCPD later elected to apply several special PRCS conditions to him. (ECF No. 10-1 at 7.) 

1

In his initial Motion for TRO, Plaintiff additionally sought an order enjoining BCPD and 

Lara from enforcing the special Post-Release Community Supervision conditions that were 

applied when Plaintiff was released from custody. (See ECF No. 10 at 1–2.) The Court denied 

that portion of Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO, and therefore does not address that request herein. 

Case 2:20-cv-02248-DJC-DMC Document 28 Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Plaintiff claims these additional special conditions were imposed without warning or justification 

and therefore violate his constitutional rights. (See generally ECF No. 10-1.) 

On November 10, 2020, Plaintiff initiated this action on behalf of himself and Minors A, 

B, and C against Defendants. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint asserts thirteen causes of action,

which essentially challenge Plaintiff’s PRCS conditions as unconstitutional and preempted by 

state law and seek to prohibit Defendants from enforcing any of the special PRCS restrictions 

against Plaintiff. (Id. at 39–43.) Four of the causes of action pertain to alleged violations of the 

right to familial association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution 

and Art. I, § 1 of the California Constitution. (See id. at 13–14, 45–46, 49–53.) Minors A, B, and 

C join Plaintiff in asserting these four causes of action against Defendants. (See id.) The

remaining nine causes of action in the Complaint are asserted by Plaintiff alone. (See id. at 39–

53.) 

That same day, Plaintiff also filed his Pseudonym Motion. (ECF No. 2.) The Pseudonym 

Motion seeks permission for Plaintiff and his children (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) to proceed in 

this action under the pseudonyms “John Doe” and “Minors A, B, and C.” (Id. at 1.) The 

Pseudonym Motion further seeks an order that any information or distinguishing characteristics 

which could reveal the true identity of Plaintiffs be redacted or sealed and that Defendants be 

prohibited from revealing Plaintiffs’ true identities. (Id.) 

On November 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Motion for TRO seeking to enjoin 

Defendants from enforcing the special PRCS conditions of his probation and to permit Plaintiffs

to proceed under pseudonym until the Court ruled on Plaintiff’s pending Pseudonym Motion.

2

 

(ECF No. 10.) On December 9, 2020, the Court considered Plaintiff’s motion and supporting 

documentation and issued an Order partially granting and partially denying Plaintiff’s requested 

TRO. (ECF No. 18.) The Court denied the motion with respect to Plaintiff’s request to enjoin 

BCPD and Lara from enforcing the special conditions of his probation, on the basis that such 

request was neither timely made nor the appropriate subject of a motion for TRO. (Id. at 5–8.) 

2 At the time of filing of Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO, the Pseudonym Motion was set for 

hearing on January 7, 2020. (See ECF No. 7.) 

Case 2:20-cv-02248-DJC-DMC Document 28 Filed 01/06/21 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

With respect to Plaintiff’s request to proceed under pseudonym, the Court granted Plaintiff’s 

request but expressly noted it was doing so in large part due to the extremely limited duration of 

the requested relief and the fact that no opposing arguments or evidence were yet before it for 

consideration. (See id. at 9, 11–12, 14.) As such, the arguments submitted by Plaintiff were 

deemed sufficient at that time to support granting the requested temporary relief. (Id.) Pursuant 

to the TRO, Defendants were temporarily enjoined from disclosing Plaintiffs’ true identities or 

any identifying characteristics and were ordered to show cause as to why a PI should not be 

issued continuing the TRO until the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s pending Pseudonym Motion. 

(Id. at 15.) 

On December 21, 2020, BCPD and Lara filed a response to the TRO opposing Plaintiff’s 

request to proceed under pseudonym. (ECF No. 19.) However, on December 28, 2020, BCPD 

and Lara withdrew their opposition and instead filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to the PI and 

Plaintiff’s pending Pseudonym Motion. (ECF No. 25.) Meanwhile, Horowitz-Person also filed a 

Statement of Non-Opposition to the PI and Plaintiff’s pending Pseudonym Motion. (ECF No. 

20.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a Reply. (ECF No. 26.) On December 30, 2020, the Court 

deemed the Pseudonym Motion submitted on the pleadings. (ECF No. 27.) 

II. STANDARD OF LAW

As a general rule, “the identity of the parties in any action, civil or criminal, should not be 

concealed except in an unusual case, where there is a need for the cloak of anonymity.” United 

States v. Doe (Doe I), 488 F.3d 1154, 1156 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. Doe 

(Doe II), 655 F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981). In the unusual case, a court must consider 

whether anonymity is “necessary to protect a person from injury or harassment.” Doe I, 488 F.3d 

at 1156 n.1. The court must then “balance the need for anonymity against the general 

presumption that parties’ identities are public information.” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced 

Textile Corp. (Advanced Textile), 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). Where the opposing party 

has objected to a party’s request to proceed anonymously, a district court must typically balance 

five factors: “(1) the severity of the threatened harm, (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous 

party’s fears, . . . (3) the anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation,” (4) the prejudice to 

Case 2:20-cv-02248-DJC-DMC Document 28 Filed 01/06/21 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

the opposing party, and (5) the public interest. Doe v. Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop 

Estate, 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010). 

III. ANALYSIS

A. Pseudonym Motion 

In his Pseudonym Motion, Plaintiff argues he presents an unusual case in which the need 

for anonymity arises not from the elevated risk of violence to Plaintiff that may result due to his 

status as a registered sex offender, but from the elevated risk of violence to Plaintiff’s three minor 

children, who also bring this action. (See generally ECF No. 2.) Defendants have all filed 

Statements of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff’s Pseudonym Motion and the PI at this time.3 (ECF 

Nos. 20, 25.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is hereby GRANTED as set forth herein. 

B. Motion for PI

As the Court previously noted, Defendants have all filed Statements of Non-Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s Pseudonym Motion and the Motion for PI. (ECF Nos. 20, 25.) Accordingly, the Court 

finds Plaintiff’s Motion continues to adequately satisfy the Winter prongs of the injunctive relief 

analysis for the same reasons set forth in the December 9, 2020 Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for 

TRO. (See ECF No. 18 at 8–14); Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 

(2008). As such, Plaintiff’s Motion for PI is GRANTED. 

Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s Motion for PI merely seeks an order continuing the TRO’s 

prohibition on revealing Plaintiffs’ true identities until issuance of the Court’s ruling on the 

pending Pseudonym Motion. (ECF No. 10 at 21–22.) Having granted the Pseudonym Motion, 

the purpose of the PI has been achieved. Therefore, the PI is hereby DISCHARGED. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonyms and to Redact 

or Seal Identifying Documents (ECF No. 2) is hereby GRANTED, as follows:

The parties are directed to only refer to Plaintiffs by the pseudonyms “John Doe,” and 

3 Defendants additionally reserved their right to challenge the pseudonym status with good 

cause at a later time in the litigation, which this Court deems appropriate. See Advanced Textile, 

214 F.3d at 1068–69 (holding a court must “determine the precise prejudice at each stage of the 

proceedings” because the “balance . . . may change as the litigation progresses.”). 

Case 2:20-cv-02248-DJC-DMC Document 28 Filed 01/06/21 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

“Minors A, B, and C” in all filings for this action, with the proviso that the public will not be 

prevented from observing the proceedings or rulings of the Court. Plaintiff’s request to file under 

seal any document revealing Plaintiffs’ true identities is also GRANTED, with the clarification 

that to the extent Plaintiffs’ true identities can be protected through redaction alone, documents 

must be redacted instead of sealed. No document filed under seal shall be open to inspection, 

expect as provided herein. 

Pursuant to this Order, Defendants may review the sealed documents and may only reveal 

Plaintiffs’ true identities (or any information or distinguishing characteristics which could reveal 

Plaintiffs’ true identities) to attorneys litigating this case on their behalf. Defendants and their 

attorneys shall take all reasonable measures to prevent public disclosure of Plaintiffs’ true 

identities. 

Any party that believes a document has been sealed or redacted improperly may file a 

motion to unseal or to delete redactions. The Court on its own motion may direct a party to show 

cause as to why a document should not be unsealed or redactions deleted. 

Plaintiff’s Motion for PI is GRANTED and the PI is hereby DISCHARGED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 5, 2021

Case 2:20-cv-02248-DJC-DMC Document 28 Filed 01/06/21 Page 6 of 6