Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 7, 2020

Roe 1 v. City of New York

Judge
Louis Stanton
Docket
1:20-cv-10188
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
15
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Roe 1 v. City of New York, Judge Stanton ordered the plaintiffs to correct filing deficiencies within thirty days.

Who this affects

Jane Roe 1, Jane Roe, and John Roe must correct the complaint’s anonymity and filing-fee deficiencies within thirty days; the case may be dismissed if they do not comply.

What happened

In Roe 1 v. City of New York, three plaintiffs filed a 427-page complaint using pseudonyms, without asking permission to remain anonymous. They also did not pay the filing fees, and only two submitted applications to proceed without prepaying fees.

The court gave the plaintiffs thirty days to submit a sealed amended complaint containing their real names, addresses, and signatures. They must also file a motion explaining why they should proceed anonymously and either pay $400 or submit a separate fee-waiver application for each plaintiff.

Judge Stanton granted permission to file the amended complaint under seal but did not decide whether the plaintiffs may remain anonymous. No summons will issue now, and the court said the action will be dismissed if the plaintiffs do not comply.

The detailed version

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

Case
Roe 1 v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-10188
Judge
Louis Stanton
Date
Dec. 7, 2020

Background

The plaintiffs, who are proceeding without lawyers, filed a 427-page complaint under the names Jane Roe 1, Jane Roe, and John Roe. They alleged that the City of New York, through various officials, employees, and others, participated in a conspiracy involving prosecutors, judges, clerks, lawyers, and municipal and state defendants. The order does not decide whether those allegations are true or whether the plaintiffs’ claims have legal merit.

The plaintiffs did not ask for permission to proceed anonymously or explain why anonymity was warranted. They also filed the complaint without paying the required fees. Only John Roe and Jane Roe submitted fee-waiver applications, and those applications did not contain their real names or signatures.

Proceeding anonymously

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) generally requires a complaint to identify all parties by name. The court explained that anonymous litigation may be allowed in limited circumstances after considering factors such as the sensitivity of the issues, possible harm from disclosure, vulnerability, prejudice to defendants, confidentiality so far, the public interest, and alternative ways to protect identities.

The court directed the plaintiffs to submit an amended complaint under seal containing their real names, addresses, and signatures. The court granted leave to file that amended complaint under seal, but said it would be placed on the public docket only if the plaintiffs’ request to proceed anonymously is denied and they consent to continue under their real names.

If the plaintiffs want to continue using pseudonyms, they must file a sealed motion titled “Motion to Proceed Anonymously” explaining why anonymity should be allowed and including their real names, addresses, and signatures. If the court grants that motion, the plaintiffs may proceed under pseudonyms and access to identifying documents will be limited. If the court denies it, the plaintiffs will have thirty days to withdraw the action if they do not wish to proceed under their real names.

Filing fees or fee-waiver applications

The court stated that a civil plaintiff must pay $400 in filing and administrative fees or submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying fees. Within thirty days, each of the three plaintiffs must either pay the fees or submit a separate sealed fee-waiver application containing that plaintiff’s real name, address, and signature. The court may allow the plaintiffs to proceed without prepaying fees if it grants the applications.

Earlier related proceedings

The court noted that the plaintiffs may have previously filed related actions involving many of the same defendants without using their real names, paying the fees, or seeking permission to proceed anonymously. In one earlier related proceeding, the court directed similar corrections and later dismissed the action without prejudice after the plaintiffs did not comply. The court warned that failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action for failure to correct the identified deficiencies.

Ruling and current status

Judge Louis L. Stanton ordered the plaintiffs to submit the amended complaint, the anonymity motion if they seek to proceed anonymously, and the required fee-waiver applications or payment to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within thirty days. The order does not grant permission to proceed anonymously, rule on the underlying claims, or issue summonses. The court directed the Clerk to mail the order and record service, but noted that the plaintiffs had not provided addresses and therefore might not receive it unless they provide them.

The authoritative version

Read the full 15-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.