John Doe v. United States Attorney's Office
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-09358
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In John Doe v. United States Attorney’s Office, Judge Oetken denied anonymity and gave Doe 30 days to withdraw or use his real name.
John Doe’s ability to litigate anonymously; the United States Attorney’s Office’s deadline to respond; and any appeal from this order.
What happened
In John Doe v. United States Attorney’s Office, John Doe asked the court to require the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York to investigate alleged “narco-terrorism.” He filed the case anonymously but did not ask for permission or explain why anonymity was necessary.
The court considered the public’s interest in knowing the parties, possible harm from disclosure, and any unfairness to the defendant. It found that although the subject matter might be sensitive, Doe did not show that disclosure would harm his own interests. The court also noted that he appeared to be seeking an investigation for a nonprofit organization rather than for himself.
Judge Oetken denied Doe’s request to proceed anonymously and gave him 30 days to either withdraw the case or continue under his real name. If Doe continues, the defendant will have 60 days from his notice to respond. The court also denied fee-free appeal status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- John Doe v. United States Attorney's Office · No. 1:22-cv-09358
- James Oetken
- Nov. 18, 2022
Background
John Doe, who is representing himself, filed a complaint presented as a request for a court order compelling the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York to investigate individuals associated with alleged “narco-terrorism.” He filed anonymously as “John Doe,” but he did not ask the court for permission to do so. He submitted a declaration using his real name, but that declaration did not explain why he should be allowed to remain anonymous.
The opinion states that Doe sought the investigation based on executive orders he believed entitled him to one. It also states that he sought the investigation on behalf of a nonprofit organization incorporated in Florida, rather than on his own behalf. Because he is not a lawyer, the court noted that he may represent only his own interests. The court said it would address his attempt to represent the nonprofit organization if he chose to proceed in his own name.
Anonymity ruling
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) generally requires parties to be identified in a complaint’s caption. The court applied the Second Circuit’s balancing approach, which considers factors including the sensitivity of the subject matter, possible physical or mental harm from disclosure, other possible harms, the plaintiff’s vulnerability, whether the case challenges government conduct, prejudice to the defendant, whether the identity has been kept confidential, the public interest in disclosure, and possible alternatives to anonymity.
The court concluded that Doe could not proceed anonymously. Although the subject matter described in the complaint might be highly sensitive, Doe did not identify facts showing that disclosure would be sensitive as to his own interests. The court therefore denied the motion to proceed anonymously.
Disposition
The court ordered that Doe may no longer proceed as a John Doe plaintiff. It gave him 30 days from the order to either withdraw the action or notify the court that he will proceed using his real name. If he does not respond within 30 days, the clerk will be directed to add his real name to the docket. If he proceeds in his real name, the United States Attorney’s Office will have 60 days from the date of his notice to respond to the complaint.
The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide whether the requested investigation was legally required.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.