Jane Doe v. New York City Department of Education
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-00198
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Jane Doe v. New York City Department of Education: Judge Vyskocil denied Doe’s preliminary-injunction motion without prejudice.
Jane Doe and the defendants in the case, including the New York City Department of Education.
What happened
Jane Doe v. New York City Department of Education concerns Jane Doe’s request for a temporary court order. She filed the case without a lawyer, using the name Jane Doe, and later filed an amended complaint.
The court said Doe had not asked for permission to proceed under a pseudonym or explained why that protection was justified. It ordered her to submit a declaration explaining her request by February 13, 2023, and to serve the complaint on all defendants.
Because of these unresolved issues and because the filings did not show that money damages would be inadequate, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied the motion for a preliminary injunction without prejudice. The clerk was asked to terminate the motion from the docket.
The detailed version
- Jane Doe v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:23-cv-00198
- Vyskocil
- Jan. 13, 2023
Background
Jane Doe filed the complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction on January 8, 2023. A preliminary injunction is a temporary court order intended to provide relief while a case is pending. Doe filed an amended complaint on January 11, 2023. The opinion states that she was proceeding without a lawyer and that the complaint used the pseudonym “Jane Doe.”
Pseudonym and Service Issues
The court explained that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally require a complaint to name all parties. Doe had not requested permission to proceed under a pseudonym, and the filings did not provide a basis for granting that relief. The court ordered her to submit a declaration by February 13, 2023, explaining why she should be allowed to continue using a pseudonym. In the meantime, she was required to serve the complaint on all defendants under the federal rules.
Ruling
The court stated that these issues remained unresolved and that Doe’s filings did not suggest that her alleged harm could not be adequately compensated by money damages. The court therefore denied without prejudice Doe’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The opinion does not state the underlying claims or decide their merits. The Clerk of Court was asked to terminate docket entry 2.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.