Doe v. City Of Concord
- James Donato
- 3:20-cv-02432
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Doe v. City of Concord, Judge Donato granted Jane Doe’s fee waiver and preliminary pseudonym request, denied counsel, and terminated electronic-filing request as moot.
Jane Doe, the City of Concord and the other defendants, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshal. Doe received permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees and to serve the complaint under a pseudonym on a preliminary basis, but was denied appointed counsel.
What happened
In Jane Doe v. City of Concord, Jane Doe, who was representing herself, asked to proceed without paying filing fees, use electronic filing, receive appointed counsel, and proceed under a pseudonym.
The court granted the fee-waiver request and directed the U.S. Marshal to serve the complaint and order without prepayment. It terminated the electronic-filing request as moot because she could already use the system. It denied appointed counsel and granted pseudonym use only preliminarily, allowing her to serve the complaint as Jane Doe.
Judge James Donato said Doe could renew her request to remain anonymous within 21 days after serving the defendants, with notice to them. The court would reconsider anonymity after the defendants had an opportunity to respond.
The detailed version
- Doe v. City Of Concord · No. 3:20-cv-02432
- James Donato
- May 1, 2020
Background
Jane Doe, proceeding without a lawyer, filed four requests: permission to proceed without paying filing fees, permission to use the electronic case-filing system, appointment of counsel, and permission to proceed under a pseudonym.
Rulings
The court granted the application to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The Clerk was directed to issue the summons, and the U.S. Marshal was directed to serve the defendants by mail without requiring prepayment of fees. Service was to include the complaint, any amendments or attachments, and the order.
The court terminated Doe’s request for permission to access the electronic filing system as moot. Under General Order 72-2, she could already access that system without obtaining permission. The court stated that she could renew the request within 21 days after that provision of the general order was rescinded.
The court denied Doe’s request for appointed counsel. It explained that there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case or to a court-appointed attorney in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court also found that the exceptional circumstances required for discretionary appointment of counsel for an indigent civil litigant were not present. It referred Doe to the Pro Se Help Center.
The court granted Doe’s request to proceed under a pseudonym on a preliminary basis. It allowed her to serve the complaint as Jane Doe, but declined to permanently grant anonymity before any defendant had been served or appeared. If Doe wished to remain anonymous, she could renew the request in an administrative motion, with notice to the defendants, within 21 days after service. The court would then reconsider the request after the defendants had an opportunity to respond.
Disposition
The application to proceed without prepaying filing fees was granted. The electronic-filing request was terminated as moot. The request for appointed counsel was denied. The request to proceed under a pseudonym was granted on a preliminary basis. Judge James Donato ordered that these rulings take effect.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.