Court Opinion

ID: 9389420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 17:01:24.425099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:26.942717
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2186     Doc: 13        Filed: 04/24/2023   Pg: 1 of 4

                                           UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                             No. 22-1978

        JANE DOE,

                           Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        ABA ACCREDITED UNIVERSITY; AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION;
        DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

                           Defendants - Appellees.

                                             No. 22-2186

        JANE DOE,

                           Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        ABA ACCREDITED UNIVERSITY; AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION;
        DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

                           Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Patricia Tolliver Giles, District Judge; John Foster Anderson, Magistrate
        Judge. (1:22-cv-00947-PTG-JFA)
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2186      Doc: 13         Filed: 04/24/2023    Pg: 2 of 4

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                         Decided: April 24, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jane Doe, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2186      Doc: 13         Filed: 04/24/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Jane Doe appeals the district court's orders denying her motions for leave to proceed

        in forma pauperis, for a temporary restraining order, and to proceed under a pseudonym.

        For the following reasons, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

               Turning first to the district court’s denial of Doe’s motion for leave to proceed in

        forma pauperis, we have jurisdiction over this portion of the appeal because an order

        denying a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an appealable interlocutory order.

        Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950) (per curiam). We have reviewed the

        record and discern no reversible error on this point.

               Next, Doe argues that the district court erred in denying her motion for a temporary

        restraining order. Absent exceptional circumstances, the denial of a motion for a temporary

        restraining order is considered interlocutory and is not appealable. See Office of Personnel

        Mgmt. v. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., 473 U.S. 1301, 1303-04 (1985). Exceptional

        circumstances exist where the denial effectively decides the merits of the case. See

        Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (4th Cir. 1976). Upon a review of the

        record, we conclude that no such exceptional circumstances are present in this case.

        Therefore, we dismiss this portion of Doe’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

               Finally, Doe argues that the district court erred in denying her motion to proceed

        under a pseudonym. We review the court’s decision on this issue for an abuse of discretion,

        recognizing that “proceeding by pseudonym is a rare dispensation.” Doe v. Pub. Citizen,

        749 F.3d 246, 273 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have identified

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2186      Doc: 13        Filed: 04/24/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        several factors for district courts to consider in determining whether a party should be

        allowed to proceed under a pseudonym:

              Whether the justification asserted by the requesting party is merely to avoid
              the annoyance and criticism that may attend any litigation or is to preserve
              privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature; whether
              identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the
              requesting party or even more critically, to innocent nonparties; the ages of
              the person whose privacy interests are sought to be protected; whether the
              action is against a governmental or private party; and, relatedly, the risk of
              unfairness to the opposing party from allowing an action against it to proceed
              anonymously.

        Id. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court properly considered the

        relevant factors, and we discern no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of Doe’s

        motion.

              Accordingly, we affirm in part, dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in part, and deny as

        moot Doe’s motion to expedite. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

        legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

        would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                             AFFIRMED IN PART,
                                                                             DISMISSED IN PART

                                                    4