(HC) Doe v. Andrews

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOHN DOE, Case No.: 1:25-cv-00680-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO PROCEED UNDER 13 v. PSEUDONYM JOHN DOE TONYA ANDREWS, Facility [Doc. 2] Administrator, et al., Respondents.

Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding with counsel with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s June 4, 2025, motion to proceed under a pseudonym. (Doc. 2.)

The Ninth Circuit has held that “a party may preserve his or her anonymity in judicial proceedings in special circumstances when the party's need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public's interest in knowing the party's identity.” Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). In determining the need for anonymity, the Court must evaluate the following factors: 1) the severity of the threatened harm; (2)the reasonableness of the anonymous party’s fears; (3) the anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation; (4) the precise prejudice at each stage of the proceedings to the opposing party and whether proceedings may be structured so as to mitigate that prejudice; and (5) whether the public’s interest in the case would be best served by requiring that the litigant reveals his or her identity. Id. at 1068-69.

3 Petitioner is a Jamaican national who applied for protection under the Convention Against Torture. He fears persecution and retaliation from a criminal gang that operates extensively in the region Petitioner is from. The current lawsuit would reveal details about Petitioner that would be discovered by individuals in Jamaica seeking information about him. Petitioner asserts that he is aware that individuals in Jamaica look for information about him online. Petitioner’s fears are credible and satisfy the first three factors. Further, the Court does not find Respondent will be prejudiced should Petitioner proceed under a pseudonym. As Petitioner notes, Respondent has been informed of Petitioner’s identity. The Court finds Petitioner’s need for anonymity outweighs the public’s interest in knowing his identity.

12 For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s motion to proceed under a pseudonym is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 Dated: June 6, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE