Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01657/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01657-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

08cv1657

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

R.P.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VISTA

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv1657-L(NLS)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

On October 15, 2008 the court issued the Order Granting Motion to Proceed in Forma

Pauperis and Order to Show Cause, directing Plaintiff to show cause why the complaint should

not be dismissed for failure to state his name as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

10(a), or in the alternative file an amended complaint in compliance with Rule 10(a). On

October 21, 2008 Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause. For the reasons which

follow, the complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, identified himself throughout his pleadings as R.P. He filed

a complaint alleging that he is a disabled minority person and that two of his former high

schools and individuals acting on behalf of the schools violated his constitutional and other

rights. He has since left both Defendant institutions and is no longer a minor.

Plaintiff’s use of initials to identify himself as the party plaintiff “runs afoul of the

public’s common law right if access to judicial proceedings, and Rule 10(a)’s command that the

title of every complaint include the names of all the parties.” See Does I Through XXIII v.

Case 3:08-cv-01657-L-NLS Document 6 Filed 10/29/08 Page 1 of 4
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 08cv1657

Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citations and quotation

marks omitted). It also prejudices the opposing party’s ability to investigate and respond to the

complaint. See id. at 1068. “As a general rule, the identity of the parties in any action . . .

should not be concealed except in the unusual case where there is a need for the cloak of

anonymity.” United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1012 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal citation and

quotation marks omitted). The need for anonymity is not apparent on the face of the complaint.

 Courts permit the use of pseudonyms in the unusual cases where it is necessary to protect

a person from harassment, injury, ridicule or personal embarrassment. United States v. Doe, 655

F.2d 920, 922 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981). Where, as here, anonymity is used to shield a party from

retaliation, the court considers three factors in evaluating the need: “(1) the severity of the

threatened harm; (2) the reasonableness of the anonymous party’s fears; and (3) the anonymous

party’s vulnerability to such retaliation.” Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068 (internal

citations omitted). “[A] party may preserve his or her anonymity in judicial proceedings in

special circumstances when the party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing

party and the public’s interest of knowing the party’s identity.” Id. 

In his response Plaintiff explains that anonymity is needed in his case because various

Defendants have retaliated against him for his mother’s complaints about their allegedly

unconstitutional and unlawful conduct toward him, and that the acts of retaliation and

harassment continued after he had left Defendant schools, which caused him embarrassment,

damaged his personal property, and deprived him of a training program and employment. 

The threatened harm includes spreading rumors about Plaintiff to deprive him of

educational and employment opportunities. This threat is common in actions alleging

constitutional violations against educational institutions or employers. See, e.g., S. Methodist

Univ. Ass’n of Women Law Students v. Wynne & Jaffe, 599 F.2d 707, 713 (5th Cir. 1979)

Nevertheless, in such cases anonymity is not granted as a matter of course. See, e.g., id. at 713

(alleging retaliation from current employers, prospective future employers and the bar that does

not like “lawyers who sue lawyers”). This case is therefore not unusual. Moreover, Plaintiff

/ / / / /

Case 3:08-cv-01657-L-NLS Document 6 Filed 10/29/08 Page 2 of 4
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 08cv1657

does not state when after he left Defendant schools in 2002 these incidents took place. It is

therefore not clear whether they are recent enough to be relevant.

Plaintiff also alleges incidents in 2007 when his property was stolen from his car and his

car was vandalized. In addition, in May 2008 his car was damaged by an illegal pyrotechnic

device while in his driveway. Plaintiff has provided no evidence linking these incidents to any

Defendant or showing they were retaliatory to complaints about violations of his rights. It is

therefore not clear whether these incidents are relevant to Plaintiff’s request for anonymity in

this action. Because it is not clear whether the incidents are relevant, Plaintiff has not shown the

reasonableness of his fear that the incidents will recur if Defendants find out his identity as the

party plaintiff in this action. 

More importantly, Plaintiff can not show that anonymity is necessary because it appears

that Defendants already know his identity. Plaintiff acknowledges it in his response. (See

Response to Court Order for Plaintiff to Declare Why This Claim Was Filed in Anonymity at 4

(“There is no prejudice to Defendants in this case because Defendants are familiar with the

issues in dispute and my mother has continuously asked defendants to draft policies . . ..”).) In

addition, it is apparent from the specificity of the allegations in the complaint that Defendants

can easily identify Plaintiff. Although this weighs against a finding of prejudice to Defendants,

it also brings into question Plaintiff’s need for anonymity. The reason for Plaintiff’s request is

not protection from third parties or public embarrassment but from Defendants’ retaliation. 

Because Defendants already know Plaintiff’s identity, allowing Plaintiff to proceed

anonymously would serve no purpose.

Finally, Plaintiff does not address the public’s interest in knowing the identities of

litigating parties. See Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068. “[I]dentifying the parties to the

proceeding is an important dimension of publicness. The people have a right to know who is

using their courts.” Stoterau, 542 F.3d at 1013. The interest weighing in favor of open judicial

proceedings outweighs the low value of anonymity in this case. See id. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

request for anonymity is DENIED.

/ / / / /

Case 3:08-cv-01657-L-NLS Document 6 Filed 10/29/08 Page 3 of 4
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 08cv1657

The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff is GRANTED fourteen

calendar days’ leave from the date this order is stamped “Filed” in which to file an amended

complaint in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a). Plaintiff’s amended

complaint must be complete in itself without reference to the superseded pleading. See Civ.

Local Rule 15.1. Defendants not individually named and all claims not re-alleged in the

amended complaint will be considered waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.

1987). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 28, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. NITA L. STORMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-01657-L-NLS Document 6 Filed 10/29/08 Page 4 of 4