1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JANE DOE, Case No. 23-cv-06657-PCP

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND 9 v. DENYING REQUEST TO SEAL

10 MARLENE DEHLINGER, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 31 Defendants. 11

12 13 The pro se plaintiff in this case has repeatedly requested to proceed under the pseudonym 14 “Jane Doe.” The Court denied this request on April 9, 2024 and ordered plaintiff to file an 15 amended complaint by April 23, 2024. Since that time, the Court has granted three additional 16 extensions, the most recent of which required plaintiff to file her amended complaint by August 17 30, 2024. Dkt. No. 30. On September 3, 2024, plaintiff filed a letter with the Court requesting: (1) 18 an order sealing all files in this case, in case 22-cv-06822-BLF, and all related cases in California 19 state courts; and (2) an additional extension to her filing deadline. For the reasons set forth below, 20 the Court denies both requests. 21 I. Plaintiff’s request to seal is denied. 22 There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to court records. Kamakana v. City & 23 Cnty. of Honolulu,

, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, a party seeking to seal documents 24 must “minimize the number of documents filed under seal” and “avoid … sealing entire 25 documents.” N.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 79-5(a). Plaintiff, however, seeks to seal the entire case 26 docket. Though plaintiff has specified her reasons for seeking seal, the “fact that the production of 27 records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation” 1 findings indicating that court documents may be used as “a vehicle for improper purposes, such as 2 ... to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, [or] circulate libelous statements,” the Court 3 will not order the sealing of individual documents or portions thereof, let alone the entire case 4 || docket. /d. Further, this Court lacks power to seal files in cases assigned to other judges or 5 pending in other jurisdictions. 6 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs request to seal documents in this case, in case 22-cv- 7 06822-BLF, and in any related case in California state court is denied. 8 II. Plaintiff’s request to extend the time for filing an amended complaint is denied. 9 On August 12, 2024, the Court granted plaintiff an extension to file an amended complaint 10 || using her legal name. The Court explained: 11 Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that uses plaintiff's true 2 name by August 30, 2024. The Court will not grant any additional extensions. If plaintiff does not file a complaint by that date, this & 13 action will be dismissed without prejudice and the Clerk shall close the case file. (Even if this action is dismissed, because it will be v 14 dismissed without prejudice, plaintiff may still seek to re-file a new 5 case asserting the same claims at a later date.)

16 || Dkt. No. 30. Plaintiff failed to file her amended complaint by August 30, 2024. Though this Court

= 17 is sympathetic to plaintiff's desire to retain the benefit of the filing fee that she paid in connection

18 with this case, she has had ample time to file an amended complaint, and the Court previously 19 || explained that it would not grant any further extensions. The Court therefore dismisses this action 20 || without prejudice. As previously noted, the dismissal is without prejudice, and the plaintiff may 21 file a new case asserting the same claims at a later date (assuming they are timely). 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: September 12, 2024 25 Ze. 26 ke Cay P. Casey Pitts United States District Judge 28