Case Name: Kevin Lynn FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of NEVADA; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-08
Citations: 361 F. App'x 859
Docket Number: No. 08-15947
Parties: Kevin Lynn FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of NEVADA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 859–860

Head Matter:
Kevin Lynn FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of NEVADA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-15947.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 8, 2010.
Kevin Lynn Fernandez, Lovelock, NV, pro se.
Alicia Lerud, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Fernandez's request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kevin Lynn Fernandez, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for leave to proceed using a pseudonym. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Does I Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1069 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to proceed using a pseudonym because there were no special or unusual circumstances that justified protection of Fernandez's identity. See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1012-14 (9th Cir.2008) (rejecting a request for a pseudonym based on the nature of the prisoner's conviction as a sex offender "because this concern is equally present for all similarly situated sex offenders who face prison sentences," and questioning the value of pseudonymity where the prisoner's conviction was a matter of public rec ord and many of the documents were not submitted under seal).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.