Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00371/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00371-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ross,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Steve Corich, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-0371-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Presently pending before this Court is Defendants’ John Steven Corich, Elvis Lynn

Bray, Warren Helm Turner, Jr., Maricopa County Community College District, Motion

Requesting Plaintiff “Ross” to Properly Identify Himself. (Dkt.#39). After reviewing the

pleadings, and determining oral argument is unnecessary, the Court issues the following

Order.

Throughout the course of litigation, Plaintiff has prosecuted his case through the use

of pseudonym, “Ross.” (See (Dkt.#1-2, 6, 11, 14, 27, 32.) Defendants have filed a motion

arguing that Plaintiff’s use of the psuedonym “Ross” violates Rule 10(a) and 17(a) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 10(a) reads in part that “[t]he title of the complaint

must name all the parties;” while Rule 17(a) states that “[e]very action shall be prosecuted

in the name of the real party in interest.” Given the dictates of these two rules, Defendants

Case 2:08-cv-00371-MHM Document 43 Filed 09/08/08 Page 1 of 3
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 -

have asked this Court to compel Plaintiff to reveal his “correct, full, legal name” to both the

Court and the opposing parties. (Dkt.#39, p. 4.)

"Lawsuits are public events," Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 324 (11th Cir. 1992), and

the public has a legitimate interest in knowing “all facts and events surrounding court

proceedings.” Doe v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D. 158, 160 (N.D. Cal. 1981). Besides the legitimate

public interest that is served by having our nation’s courts open, opposing parties have a right

to know who they are litigating against. Id. 

With these principals in mind, the Ninth Circuit has held that pleading through the use

of fictitious name is only permitted in the most unusual of cases. Does I thru XXIII v.

Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2000). These are situations where

“nondisclosure of a party’s identity is necessary to protect a person from harassment, injury,

ridicule, or personal embarrassment.” Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d at 1067-68. The Ninth

Circuit has described three types of cases that are appropriate for fictitious pleading; (1)

where identification creates the risk of physical retaliation, id. at 1068; (2) where anonymity

is needed to protect highly personal information, such as medical reports or a person’s sexual

orientation, id. (citing Doe v. United Services Life Ins. Co., 123 F.R.D. 437 (S.D.N.Y.1988));

(3) and where anonymity protects a party from criminal prosecution. Id. (citing Doe v.

Stegall,653 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1981)).

 These three cases form the backdrop of a balancing test used by this Circuit when

determining whether a plaintiff, such as “Ross,” should be allowed to proceed under a

fictitious name. This balancing tests asks the Court to weigh the “party’s need for anonymity

against “prejudice to the opposing party and the public's interest in knowing that party's

identity.” Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d at 1068. 

In the instant case, Plaintiff has no special need that would to allow him to proceed

before this Court under a false name. Indeed, in briefing submitted by these Defendants,

counsel for the Maricopa County Community College District told this Court that “Ross”

would be permitted to return to Mesa Community College to use the computer if he abided

by the rules of the campus, which ironically include identifying himself to school employees.

Case 2:08-cv-00371-MHM Document 43 Filed 09/08/08 Page 2 of 3
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 -

(Dkt.#39, p. 3). Furthermore, The numerous Defendant’s in this case have at a minimum the

right to know who is suing them.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendant’s motion that Plaintiff provide the

Court and all parties to this lawsuit with his full and correct legal name within 14 days of this

Order. (Dkt.#39)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to comply by Plaintiff will result in the

involuntary dismissal of this case with prejudice.

DATED this 5th day of September, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00371-MHM Document 43 Filed 09/08/08 Page 3 of 3