Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 3, 2023

Handsome Debonair Guy v. Family Dollar Store Owner

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-00230
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
14
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Handsome Debonair Guy v. Family Dollar Store Owner, Judge Swain ordered the plaintiff to amend his complaint and address anonymity and filing fees.

Who this affects

The plaintiff, who was proceeding without a lawyer under the name “Handsome Debonair Guy,” was required to provide identifying information, amend his complaint, and address the filing fee or submit a corrected application. The defendants were not required to respond at this stage, and no summons issued.

What happened

In Handsome Debonair Guy v. Family Dollar Store Owner, the plaintiff, using the name “Handsome Debonair Guy,” alleged that Family Dollar employees accused him of shoplifting and assaulted him. He filed without a lawyer and asked to proceed under a pseudonym, but the complaint did not explain why anonymity was warranted.

The court ordered the plaintiff within 30 days to file an amended complaint using his real name, address, and signature. He also had to either pay $402 in filing fees or submit a completed application to proceed without paying fees in advance, also using his real name, address, and signature.

Judge Swain stated that the plaintiff could separately file a motion to proceed anonymously explaining the reasons for anonymity. No summons would issue at that time, and the action would be dismissed without prejudice if he failed to comply within the deadline.

The detailed version

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

Case
Handsome Debonair Guy v. Family Dollar Store Owner · No. 1:23-cv-00230
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Feb. 3, 2023

Background

The plaintiff, proceeding without a lawyer and using the name “Handsome Debonair Guy,” filed an action alleging that employees at a Family Dollar Store in Peekskill, New York, accused him of shoplifting and assaulted him. The court treated his filings as including a request to proceed anonymously.

Anonymity

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) generally requires a complaint’s title to identify all parties. Courts may allow a party to use a pseudonym in limited circumstances, but the plaintiff had not formally requested permission or explained why anonymity should be allowed.

The court ordered that, if the plaintiff wanted to proceed anonymously, he had to file a document titled “Motion to Proceed Anonymously.” The motion had to include his real name, address, and signature and explain why the court should permit anonymity. Regardless of whether he filed that motion, he had to submit an amended complaint bearing his real name and signature to comply with Rule 10(a). If the court granted permission to proceed anonymously, the plaintiff’s identity would not be disclosed and documents identifying him would have restricted access.

Filing fees or application to proceed without prepaying fees

The court explained that a civil action requires either payment of $402—consisting of a $350 filing fee and a $52 administrative fee—or a signed application to proceed without prepaying fees. The plaintiff filed the complaint without paying the fees, and his application used only the pseudonym “Handsome Debonair Guy.”

Within 30 days, the plaintiff had to either pay the $402 or submit the attached application using his real name, address, and signature. If the court granted that application, he could proceed without paying the fees in advance.

Order and effect

The court directed the plaintiff within 30 days to file an amended complaint with his real name, signature, and address and to pay the fees or submit a corrected application to proceed without prepaying them. If he wanted to proceed anonymously, he also had to file the specified anonymity motion within that period. No summons would issue at that time. If he failed to comply, the action would be dismissed without prejudice, meaning the order did not bar refiling.

Judge Swain also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 14-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.