Doe v. City of New York
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-09338
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Doe v. City of New York, Judge Torres granted defendants’ motion without prejudice because Doe filed under a pseudonym without court permission.
John Doe must identify all parties in an amended complaint to continue the case; the defendants and the public will receive the disclosure the court required.
What happened
In John Doe v. City of New York, John Doe, who was representing himself while detained at Rikers Island, alleged that he was denied basic necessities and access to certain services during about seven days in the jail’s intake area. He sued the City of New York and several individual defendants under a federal civil-rights law.
The defendants moved to dismiss because the complaint did not identify all parties by name. Doe did not oppose the motion or respond to the court’s order asking why the case should not be dismissed for failing to proceed. The court nevertheless reviewed whether Doe could continue using the name John Doe.
Judge Torres ruled that Doe had not shown enough reason to remain anonymous and granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court allowed him to file an amended complaint identifying all parties by April 5, 2021, and stated that failing to do so would result in dismissal of the action.
The detailed version
- Doe v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-09338
- Analisa Torres
- Mar. 15, 2021
Background
John Doe, proceeding without a lawyer and detained at the George R. Vierno Center at Rikers Island, sued the City of New York, Captain Henry, Deputy Carter, and Warden Walker under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that, for approximately seven days between July 24, 2019, and August 1, 2019, he was held in the facility’s intake area without bedding, showers, hygiene products, recreation, telephone access, law-library access, or certain religious foods. He also alleged that he developed hemorrhoids and a mouth sore during that period.
Doe filed the complaint using the name John Doe. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10, which the opinion discusses specifically through Rule 10(a)’s requirement that a complaint name all parties. Doe did not oppose the motion. He also did not respond to the court’s later order directing him to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failing to proceed.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that parties generally must be identified because the public has a right to examine judicial proceedings. A plaintiff may use a pseudonym only in limited circumstances. Courts balance the plaintiff’s interest in anonymity against the public’s interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendants.
The court considered Doe’s request even though he had not filed opposition papers, recognizing that complaints filed without a lawyer must be read liberally. It concluded that anonymity was not warranted because the case did not appear to involve highly sensitive or personal matters, the fact that Doe sued a government entity was not by itself enough, and his identity had not been kept confidential. The court also noted that Doe had included other identifying information, including his inmate number, and that the individual defendants and the public had an interest in knowing who made the accusations. The court found the remaining factors similarly unhelpful to Doe.
Ruling
Judge Analisa Torres granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court allowed Doe to file an amended complaint naming all parties under Rule 10(a) by April 5, 2021. The order stated that failure to file an amended complaint would result in dismissal of the action. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motions listed at ECF Nos. 22 and mail the order to Doe.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.