Brown v. Webb
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-06493
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brown v. Webb, Judge Swain restricted a minor’s identifying information and denied appeal-related fee-waiver status.
Paula Brown and the minor identified as D.D.; the clerk’s office must change the docket and restrict access to specified filings, and Brown must use the child’s initials in future submissions.
What happened
In Brown v. Webb, Paula Brown, who was representing herself, filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying court fees. Her filings included her grandson’s full name.
The court ordered the clerk to replace the child’s full name on the docket with “D.D.” and restrict electronic access to the filings containing the full name. The court also told Brown to use only the child’s initials in future filings.
Judge Swain certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Brown permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Webb · No. 1:22-cv-06493
- Laura Swain
- Nov. 7, 2022
Background
Paula Brown was representing herself when she submitted a complaint and an application to proceed without paying court fees. The filings included the full name of her grandson, identified in the caption as “D.D.” The opinion states that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require court submissions referring to a minor to use only the minor’s initials.
Court’s directives
The court directed the clerk to remove references to the child’s full name from the docket, list the child as “D.D.,” and limit electronic access to the two filings containing the full name to people identified as case participants. The court also directed Brown to comply with the rule requiring use of the child’s initials in future submissions.
Appeal-related ruling
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not address the merits of Brown’s underlying claims.
Disposition
The court entered the docket-protection directives and denied appeal-related fee-waiver status. The opinion does not state the substance of the claims in the complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.