PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE’S MOTION TO FILE ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT – Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WICHITA FALLS DIVISION 

JOHN DOE, ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 7:22-cv-00038-O 

 ) 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF ) 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE, ) 

Defendant. ) 

PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE AND MAINTAIN ANONYMOUS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 

To the HONORABLE JUDGE of said court, now comes Plaintiff John Doe, through his 

counsel and using a pseudonym to protect his medical and personal privacy, and files this Motion 

for Leave to File and Maintain an Anonymous Original Complaint.

INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff is a military veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan who served in the United States Army 

Infantry, First Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment. On active duty from 2009 until 2015, Plaintiff 

served in the Korangal Valley of Kunar Province Afghanistan in 2013-2014, which is commonly 

referred to as the “Valley of Death.” Indeed, the Korangal Valley had more American deaths than any 

other individual location in the post-9-11 War on Terror. Plaintiff’s Rehabilitation Act case revolves 

around the fact that related to his military service he was diagnosed with Depression, Severe Anxiety, 

and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (collectively PTSD). Central to the case is that the PTSD medicine 

prescribed by his physician to treat his PTSD is Fluoxetine (Prozac), which is known to create a 

false positive drug test for LSD, Amphetamines, and Methamphetamines. Plaintiff was 

wrongfully terminated based on a policy that denies Plaintiff the ability to show that the drug 

Case 7:22-cv-00038-O Document 2 Filed 04/14/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 16
PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE’S MOTION TO FILE ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT – Page 2 of 4

screening test for which he was fired was a false positive and/or fails to recognize that the drug 

Prozac creates false positive drug tests. Specifically, because Prozac was not on the Defendant’s 

pre-established list of drugs that it recognizes are known to cause false-positive drug tests, 

Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment based on a drug screen test showing possible 

Methamphetamine and Amphetamine usage, and wrongfully terminated him without entering 

into any dialog with Plaintiff’s physician to reach a reasonable accommodation that would allow 

him to take Prozac and continue to work, without adding Prozac to its “false positive” drug list, 

and without even seeking to determine if any follow on tests could prove that the urine test is 

question was a false positive test, thus wrongfully denying him his Rehabilitation Act rights. 

MOTION 

Plaintiff moves for leave to file and maintain this matter as an anonymous filing based on 

the Fifth Circuit precedent and analysis of Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 186 (5th Cir. 1981). In 

the Stegall matter, the Fifth Circuit reversed a trial court’s denial of an anonymous filing and 

held that the trial court maintains broad discretion to allow anonymous filings. See id. at 184. 

The Fifth Circuit held that the trial Court had never-the-less abused this discretion by 

improperly limiting its authority under the Fifth Circuit’s prior case of in Southern Methodist 

University Association v. Wynne & Jaffe, 599 F.2d 707 (5th Cir. 1979), stating 

In Southern Methodist University Ass'n, our Court undertook to isolate the 

characteristics common to those exceptional cases in which the need for party 

anonymity overwhelms the presumption of disclosure mandated by procedural 

custom. Judge Ainsworth, writing for the panel, identified factors presented in cases 

permitting party anonymity, only the first of which is present in the suit at bar: 

(1) plaintiffs seeking anonymity were suing to challenge governmental 

activity; 

(2) prosecution of the suit compelled plaintiffs to disclose information “of the 

utmost intimacy;” and 

(3) plaintiffs were compelled to admit their intention to engage in illegal 

conduct, thereby risking criminal prosecution. 

Case 7:22-cv-00038-O Document 2 Filed 04/14/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 17
PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE’S MOTION TO FILE ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT – Page 3 of 4

The parties seeking to proceed under pseudonyms in Southern Methodist University 

Ass'n satisfied none of these characteristics. Thus, their arguments asserted in favor 

of anonymity were weighed against the interest mandating full disclosure in judicial 

proceedings and found wanting. 

The Southern Methodist University Ass'n analysis of the issue is perceptive and 

entirely accurate. Nevertheless, we think it would be a mistake to distill a rigid, threestep test for the propriety of party anonymity from the fact-sensitive holding in 

Southern Methodist University Ass'n. 

See, Stegall, 653 F.3d at 185, citing, Southern Methodist University Ass'n, 599 F.2d at 

713, and n.11. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit determined that the Southern Methodist University 

Association case should be interpreted liberally when necessary. See id.

 However, in this instant case, there is no need to measure the breadth and width of such 

liberality because Plaintiff’s matter directly involves two of the three Southern Methodist 

University Association factors as Plaintiff is suing a governmental entity related to private 

medical conditions caused by his military service, which medical conditions Plaintiff does not 

want to be made public in order to seek redress from his governmental employer. See id.

 To be clear, Plaintiff understands both that his identity will be made known 

immediately to Defendant and also that should this case proceed to any hearings, motion 

practice, or a jury trial, that his identity will be visibly exposed to all persons in open court at 

the time of said hearings, courtroom conferences, or trial. Even so, under the precedence of 

Stegall and Southern Methodist University Association Plaintiff asserts that the Court is well 

within its discretion to allow the Plaintiff to proceed through anonymous filings. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Leave to File and Maintain an Anonymous Original Complaint, and any other and further 

relief in law or in equity as the Court deems just and right. 

Case 7:22-cv-00038-O Document 2 Filed 04/14/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 18
PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE’S MOTION TO FILE ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT – Page 4 of 4

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

       /s/Eric N. Roberson 

Eric Roberson 

Texas State Bar No. 00792803 

ENR@Kilgorelaw.com 

Kilgore & Kilgore, PLLC 

3109 Carlisle Street 

Dallas, TX 75204 

214-379-0817 Direct 

214.969.9099 Switchboard 

214.379.0843 Fax 

Counsel for Plaintiff John Doe 

CERTIFICATE OF NON-CONFERENCE 

The undersigned certifies that he is not aware of the identity of Defendant’s Counsel, and 

that with no counsel of record for defense having yet appeared in this newly filed matter, he is 

unable to confer with Defendant’s Counsel on this Motion. 

/s/Eric N. Roberson 

Eric Roberson 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this motion will be served upon Defendant with 

the Original Complaint and that the Plaintiff will not oppose any reasonable request for an 

extension of time for the Defendant to file a Response to this Motion. 

/s/Eric N. Roberson 

Eric Roberson 

Case 7:22-cv-00038-O Document 2 Filed 04/14/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 19