Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01552/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01552-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANE DOE, a MINOR, by and through 

her Legal Guardian, JILL DOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIERRA COUNTY, a public entity, 

et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-01552-MCE-CKD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Through the present action, Plaintiff seeks damages based on Jane Doe’s 

experiences with the Sierra County child welfare system. Presently before the Court is a 

motion by Defendants Sierra County and Janice Maddox (“Defendants”) to dismiss 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6) on the grounds that Plaintiff cannot legally assert any claim for relief because 

she has failed to provide the legal name of the real party in interest in this action 

(“Motion”). ECF No. 24. For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff 

will be given leave to file a Second Amended Complaint including the legal name of Jill 

Doe, Jane Doe’s mother and legal guardian.1

 1 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter 

submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(g). See ECF No. 28. 

Case 2:14-cv-01552-MCE-CKD Document 29 Filed 10/07/14 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

STANDARD

“[A] party may preserve his or her anonymity in judicial proceedings in special 

circumstances when the need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party 

and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced 

Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). Courts have permitted plaintiffs to 

use pseudonyms in three situations: “(1) when identification creates a risk of retaliatory 

physical or mental harm (citations omitted); (2) when anonymity is necessary ‘to 

preserve privacy in a matter or sensitive and highly personal nature’ (citations omitted); 

and (3) when the anonymous party is ‘compelled to admit [his or her] intention to engage 

in illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal prosecution’” (citations omitted). Id.; see Equal 

Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. ABM Indus. Inc., 249 F.R.D. 588, 592 (E.D. Cal. 

2008).

In cases where pseudonyms are used to shield an anonymous party from 

retaliation, the following factors should be considered: the severity of the threatened 

harm, the reasonableness of the anonymous party’s fears, and the anonymous party’s 

vulnerability to retaliation. Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d at 1068. A court must “determine 

the precise prejudice at each stage of the proceedings to the opposing party, and 

whether proceedings may be structured so as to mitigate that prejudice.” Id. Finally, a 

court “must decide whether the public’s interest in the case would be best served by 

requiring that the litigants reveal their identities.” Id. (citation omitted).

ANALYSIS

Although the Opposition states that Defendants “have already demonstrated a 

willingness to cause harm to Jane and Jill Doe, and Jill has previously experienced 

retaliation for her efforts to secure services for Jane and reunify her family,” ECF No. 26 

at 2, Plaintiff concedes that Defendants are aware of the actual identities of both Jane 

Case 2:14-cv-01552-MCE-CKD Document 29 Filed 10/07/14 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

and Jill Doe, and accordingly a risk of retaliatory harm is not a proper basis for Jill Doe to 

proceed anonymously in this case. See id. Rather, Plaintiff argues that the “sordid 

factual details of this case as set forth by the complaint” make it “difficult to imagine any 

more compelling reason to protect the identity of this family from further harm.” Id. at 3. 

Plaintiff analogizes this case to those on matters such as abortion and birth control, 

pregnancy and parentage, discrimination, disclosure of sexual orientation, HIV status, 

religious adversity, sex crime victim status, and scandalous divorces. See id. at 2. 

Plaintiff further presses that Defendants will not be prejudiced if both Jane and Jill Doe 

proceed anonymously. See id. at 3.

In their Reply, Defendants note they “have every intention of filing a cross 

complaint against” Jill Doe, ECF No. 27 at 2, and that allowing Jill to proceed 

anonymously will prejudice Defendants and muddle the proceedings. Moreover, 

Defendants contend that Jane and Jill Doe do not share the same last name, and thus 

Jane Doe’s identity will not necessarily be revealed by the disclosure of Jill Doe’s name. 

See id. at 3.

Under the facts of this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated 

that Jill Doe’s need for anonymity outweighs the prejudice, albeit slight, to Defendants 

and the public’s interest in knowing Jill Doe’s identity. Although the facts in the FAC 

describe very personal details as it relates to Jane Doe’s relationship with Defendants, 

there are insufficient factual allegations in the FAC describing Jill Doe’s conduct that 

elevates this to the “ ‘unusual case’ when nondisclosure of [her] identity ‘is 

necessary...to protect [her] from harassment, injury, ridicule, or personal 

embarrassment.’” Advanced Textile, 214 F.3d at 1068-69. In addition, it appears that 

requiring Jill Doe to participate in this lawsuit under her real name will not necessarily 

reveal Jane Doe’s identity.

///

///

///

Case 2:14-cv-01552-MCE-CKD Document 29 Filed 10/07/14 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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion, ECF No. 24, is GRANTED 

and Plaintiff will be given leave to file a Second Amended Complaint including the legal 

name of Jill Doe. If Plaintiff does not file a Second Amended Complaint within twenty 

(20) days after this Order is filed electronically, without further notice to the parties, 

Plaintiff’s claims will be dismissed without leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2014

Case 2:14-cv-01552-MCE-CKD Document 29 Filed 10/07/14 Page 4 of 4