IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WICHITA FALLS DIVISION

JOHN DOE, '

'

Plaintiff, '

'

v. ' Civil Action No. 7:22-cv-00038-O

'

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF '

CRIMINAL JUSTICE, '

'

Defendant. '

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court are the Motion for Leave to File and Maintain Anonymous Original 

Complaint filed by Plaintiff John Doe (“Doe”) on April 14, 2022 (ECF No. 2), Response to the 

Plaintiff’s Motion filed by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”) on April 29, 2022 

(ECF No. 9), and Doe’s Brief in Support filed on April 29, 2022 (ECF No 10). United States 

District Judge Reed O’Connor referred the Motion and all related responses to the undersigned on 

October 3, 2022. ECF No. 18. After considering the pleadings and applicable legal authorities, the 

undersigned RECOMMENDS that Judge O’Connor DENY the Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Prior to termination of his employment, Doe worked as a TDCJ corrections officer. ECF 

No. 1 at 2, 4-5. On April 4, 2022, Doe filed a complaint against TDCJ alleging violations of the 

Rehabilitation Act. Id. Doe wishes to proceed anonymously in this case because of the sensitive 

nature of his medical and mental conditions. ECF No. 10 at 8. 

II. LEGAL AUTHORITY

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) requires that “every pleading” in federal court “must 

name all the parties.” Additionally, Rule 17(a) requires that “[e]very action shall be prosecuted in 

Case 7:22-cv-00038-O Document 19 Filed 12/28/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID 80
2

the name of the real party in interest.” However, there are exceptions to these general requirements. 

The Fifth Circuit has identified three factors “common to those exceptional cases in which the 

need for party anonymity overwhelms the presumption of disclosure”: plaintiffs are “suing to 

challenge governmental activity;” “prosecution of the suit compelled plaintiffs to disclose 

information ‘of the utmost intimacy;’” and “plaintiffs were compelled to admit their intention to 

engage in illegal conduct, thereby risking criminal prosecution.” Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 185 

(5th Cir. 1981) (citing S. Methodist Univ. Ass'n of Women Law Students v. Wynne & Jaffe, 599 

F.2d 707, 713 (5th Cir.1979) (“SMU”)). These factors are not “a rigid, three-step test for the 

propriety of party anonymity. . . .,” but “deserve considerable weight in the balance pitting privacy 

concerns against the presumption of openness of judicial proceedings.” Stegall, 653 F.2d at 185-

86. In addition to these factors, courts generally also consider the entirety of the circumstances. Id. 

at 186; Plaintiff B v. Francis, 631 F.3d 1310, 1316 (11th Cir. 2011).

III. ANALYSIS

Doe alleges two of the three SMU factors. He challenges a governmental activity and 

asserts that disclosure of his identity would compel him to share information about his medical 

conditions of the utmost intimacy. ECF No. 2 at 3. As to the first factor, courts have allowed

plaintiffs to proceed anonymously when they “were challenging the constitutional, statutory or 

regulatory validity of government activity.” SMU, 599 F.2d at 713. This factor concerns a 

challenge to government activity in general, not necessarily a suit to have a law or regulation 

declared invalid. Doe v. El Paso Cnty. Hosp. Dist., No. EP-13-CV-00406-DCG, 2015 WL 

1507840, at *3 (W.D. Tex. 2015). Thus, Doe’s challenge to TDCJ’s actions and policies qualifies 

as a challenge to a governmental activity. 

Case 7:22-cv-00038-O Document 19 Filed 12/28/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID 81
3

However, the courts have permitted anonymous challenges to government activities in only

a very few cases. Stegall, 653 F.2d at 186. Generally, they also require that the disclosure of a 

party’s utmost sensitive personal information be at issue. Under this factor, “[w]here the issues 

involved are matters of a sensitive and highly personal nature ... the normal practice of disclosing 

the parties' identities yields to a policy of protecting privacy in a very private matter.” SMU, 599 

F.2d at 712–13. 

The courts have found “sensitive and highly personal” information in cases involving 

issues such as abortion, birth control, sexual assault, sexual orientation, and the welfare rights of 

illegitimate children or abandoned families. See Id.; Plaintiff B, 631 F.3d at 1315–19; Doe v. Blue 

Cross & Blue Shield United of Wis., 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997). Prayer and personal 

religious beliefs likewise involve issues of “utmost intimacy” sufficient to allow a party to proceed 

anonymously. See Stegall, 653 F.2d at 186. Some courts also have allowed plaintiffs to proceed 

anonymously on matters related to mental health. T.S. by and through P.O. v. Burke Foundation, 

No. 1:19-CV-809-RP, 2019 WL 12251945, *1 (W.D. Tex. 2019); Doe v. Griffon Mgmt. LLC, No.

14-2626, 2014 WL 7040390, at *2 (E.D. La. 2014). 

In other cases, courts have denied anonymity in instances when the plaintiffs’ main goal in 

remaining anonymous was to prevent embarrassment and not psychological harm. Doe v. Fort 

Worth Texas, No. 4:19-cv-1001-A, 2020 WL 1159435, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2020), appeal

dismissed, No. 20-10384, 2020 WL 9258337 (5th Cir. Apr. 24, 2020); Rose v. Beaumont Indep. 

Sch. Dist., 240 F.R.D. 264, 267 (E.D. Tex. 2007) (holding that personal embarrassment or 

humiliation, standing alone, is insufficient to justify the use of a pseudonym); Doe v. Frank, 951 

F.2d 320, 324 (11th Cir. 1992). 

Case 7:22-cv-00038-O Document 19 Filed 12/28/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID 82
4

While Doe alleges that he wishes to remain anonymous because of his medical conditions, 

it appears that his primary concern is avoidance of embarrassment from his medical conditions 

becoming public. ECF No. 2 at 3. He is worried about the risk of injury that would arise “in a small 

community like Wichita County where he continues to seek public service employment” and the 

social stigma associated around medical and mental health illnesses. ECF No. 10 at 2-3, 7-8. Doe 

has failed to show how this risk of injury rises to the same level of “utmost intimacy” as abortion, 

sexual orientation, or religion or how it would invade his privacy in a very personal matter. Thus, 

as noted above, because a plaintiff may not remain anonymous merely to prevent embarrassment, 

Doe has not shown his entitlement under the second SMU factor. 

Finally, in addition to the SMU factors, the Court must consider all of the circumstances of 

the case in deciding whether a party should be permitted to remain anonymous. SMU, 599 F.2d at 

713. Doe asserts that he has done everything to remain anonymous so far in the process. ECF No. 

10 at 7. He also argues that not allowing him to proceed anonymously would deter other people, 

especially veterans suffering from PTSD or similar ailments, from suing because of the fear of 

stigmatization from their community. Id. at 8. 

However, Doe also asserts that he will continue in the litigation regardless of whether he 

must use his own name or a pseudonym. Id. at 9. He also acknowledges that his identity will be 

made known to all persons in open court should this case proceed to any hearings or a jury trial

and does not object to this fact. ECF No. 2 at 3. Moreover, while Doe claims that he has attempted 

to maintain anonymity, Doe’s counsel has issued press releases to media outlets in Austin, Dallas, 

Fort Worth, Houston, Huntsville, and San Antonio regarding the case. Id. at 9. 

While the Court acknowledges that some people may think differently of Doe because of 

his mental or medical conditions, the circumstances surrounding Doe’s claim and actions that he 

Case 7:22-cv-00038-O Document 19 Filed 12/28/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID 83
5

has taken since filing suit convince the Court that the public’s interest in full and open court 

proceedings outweighs the chance that the disclosure of Doe’s name in these proceedings could 

result in some embarrassment to him. Wichita Falls is the home to a large air force base and related 

military, civilian, and retired personnel as well as a state hospital. The Court concludes that this 

community and the surrounding counties in the Wichita Falls Division are well-acquainted with 

the issues affecting veterans and other persons with medical and mental conditions. Under these 

circumstances, it seems unlikely that Doe would suffer untoward consequences from appearing in 

this case under his own name. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Because Doe has not shown that proceeding anonymously in this case is needed to protect 

his utmost sensitive and highly personal information, the undersigned concludes that the public’s 

interest in full and open court proceedings requires Doe to proceed without a pseudonym. 

Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that United States District Judge Reed O’Connor 

DENY the Motion.

A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties 

in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, 

and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with 

a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). In order to be specific, an 

objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state 

the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, 

and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely 

incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. 

Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual 

Case 7:22-cv-00038-O Document 19 Filed 12/28/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID 84
6

findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district 

court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 

1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

SIGNED on December 28, 2022.

______________________________________

Hal R. Ray, Jr.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 7:22-cv-00038-O Document 19 Filed 12/28/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID 85