Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 28, 2025

Doe v. Noem

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:25-cv-03365
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Doe v. Noem, Judge Cronan ordered Jane Doe to seek permission to use a pseudonym by May 2 or face dismissal without prejudice.

Who this affects

Jane Doe, whose ability to proceed under a pseudonym depends on filing a motion and obtaining the court’s permission.

What happened

In Doe v. Noem, Jane Doe filed the complaint using a pseudonym. The court said federal rules generally require a complaint to identify all parties by name.

The court said Jane Doe may proceed anonymously only if she first asks for and receives permission. It ordered her to file that request by May 2, 2025.

Judge Cronan stated that if Jane Doe did not file the request by that deadline, the court would dismiss the complaint without prejudice and without further notice. The opinion did not itself dismiss the complaint.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Doe v. Noem · No. 1:25-cv-03365
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Apr. 28, 2025

Background

Jane Doe filed the complaint under a pseudonym. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

Court’s Order

The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), which requires a complaint’s title to name all parties. It also cited Second Circuit precedent stating that a plaintiff may proceed under a pseudonym only after asking the court for permission and receiving it.

The court gave Jane Doe until May 2, 2025, to file a motion seeking permission to appear under a pseudonym. The court stated that it would dismiss the complaint without prejudice and without further notice if she failed to meet that deadline. The opinion does not say that the complaint was dismissed at that time.

Disposition

Judge John P. Cronan ordered Jane Doe to seek permission to proceed pseudonymously by May 2, 2025, or the complaint would be dismissed without prejudice. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.