Opinion ID: 77467
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Yan Zocaras.

Text: 8 Q. Mr. Zocaras, are you known by any other names? 9 A. Yes, ma'am. Yes. 10 Q. What names are those? 11 A. Carlos Vasquez. 12 Q. Are you known by any other names? 13 A. Yes; with my true name. 14 Q. What is your true name? 15 A. Cesar Vasquez. 16 Q. Have you been known by any other names other than Carlos Vasquez and Cesar Vasquez? 17 A. No, ma'am. Cross-examination began like this: 18 Q. Cesar Vasquez is your true name? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Yan Zocaras is a false name? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. You're proceeding here in court under a false name? 23 Ms. Puentes: Objection, your Honor. Argumentative. 24 The Court: Sustained. Rephrase your question. 25 Q. So Mr. Vasquez, isn't it true that you have—you had a Florida ID under the name Yan Zocaras? 26 A. Yes. 27 Q. And when you were arrested by the police, you gave them the name Carlos Vasquez? Isn't that correct? 28 A. Yes. 29 Q. You lied about your name? 30 A. Yes. 31 On re-direct the next day, the plaintiff gave this explanation to the jury about why he had used a false name in the case: 32 Well, when I was sentenced, then I went to prison. I notified them that that was not my name and that I wanted to have a—change to my name. I asked them to change it to my name. And they told me that I had to continue to use that name until my sentence was over. And that's why I put the complaint under that name, because I couldn't have it under my name, as this was the name that I had in prison. 33 After the plaintiff rested, the defendants called two witnesses before resting. 34 The defendants then moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11 and 41(b) because the plaintiff had proceeded under the false name Yan Zocaras. The district court conducted a hearing on the motion the following day and gave the plaintiff an opportunity to explain his actions. At one point, the district court stated for the record: Let me announce the case once more. Yan Zocaras, now known as Cesar Vasquez, versus Emilio Lopez and Miguel Rodriguez, Case No. 03-22034. 35 At the hearing on the motion to dismiss the court directed the attorneys for the plaintiff to discuss with him whether he would waive his Fifth Amendment rights which would permit further inquiry into his use of a false name during the litigation. They told the court that they were civil lawyers who did not feel qualified to advise the plaintiff on the slew of possible criminal issues here. The court then sent for an assistant federal public defender and recessed to provide an opportunity for her to advise the plaintiff on whether to waive the Fifth Amendment. After receiving further advice, the plaintiff asserted his Fifth Amendment rights as to any additional questioning about his use of false names. 36 Counsel for the plaintiff made a number of arguments against dismissal. The primary one was an assertion that the plaintiff had not acted willfully or in bad faith but only negligently based on a misunderstanding of what he had been told by the Department of Corrections. After hearing all that the plaintiff's counsel had to say, the district court entered detailed findings and conclusions, a copy of which we have attached to this opinion as Appendix A. Among other things, the court found that the plaintiff's use of a false name throughout the two years leading up to the trial had not been negligent or the result of a misunderstanding but was deliberate and willful. The court followed up its findings and conclusions from the bench with a written order to the same effect, a copy of which is Appendix B to this opinion. This appeal by the plaintiff followed.