John Doe v. Hunter

Background

John Doe, appearing without a lawyer, sued Marcus Jeremey Hunter, Beverly Hunter, Zachary Leo Etheart, Max Etheart, Alexis Martin, Morgaine Gooding-Silverwood, Rozanne Gooding-Silverwood, Imani Brown, and unidentified “Guardians 1 and 2.” He alleged that, while he and several defendants were Columbia University students in 2012, defendants provided or encouraged alcohol consumption, and Marcus Hunter sexually assaulted him in a bathroom while others were nearby. He also alleged that photographs or video of the incident were taken or shared, that defendants made reports to Columbia administrators, and that the events caused continuing physical and psychological harm.

The complaint asserted a federal conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), along with state-law claims for assault and battery, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, negligent failure to supervise and restrain, false imprisonment, and claims under New York statutes. John Doe sought damages and injunctive relief. He also asked to litigate under the pseudonym “John Doe.”

Pseudonym request

The court denied the motion to proceed under a pseudonym. It recognized that the allegations involved highly sensitive and personal matters, but concluded that the concerns identified in the motion—possible professional or academic consequences, retaliation, media attention, and public discrimination—were not sufficiently specified to overcome the general requirement that parties in federal civil cases be identified. Because John Doe was representing himself and was allowed to amend, the court denied the motion without prejudice to filing another pseudonym motion with the amended complaint within 30 days.

Federal claim

The court dismissed the Section 1985(3) conspiracy claim for failure to state a claim. That statute requires facts showing a conspiracy, an effort to deprive the plaintiff of equal legal protection or privileges, an act advancing the conspiracy, an injury or deprivation of rights, and racial or another class-based discriminatory motive. The court found that John Doe described the events in detail but alleged the conspiracy and discriminatory motive only conclusorily. It granted leave to replead the federal claim with sufficient supporting facts.

State-law claims and jurisdiction

The court declined to consider the state-law claims under its supplemental jurisdiction because it dismissed all federal claims. It separately dismissed the state-law claims to the extent John Doe relied on diversity jurisdiction. The court found that complete diversity was not shown because John Doe appeared to allege that he and several defendants were citizens of New York. It also found that his request for hundreds of millions of dollars did not, by itself, provide enough facts to show that the claims exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional amount.

The court granted leave to replead the state-law claims. To rely on diversity jurisdiction in an amended complaint, John Doe must name only defendants who are not citizens of the same state as he is and must allege facts supporting the required amount in controversy.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action, dismissed the federal claims for failure to state a claim, declined to consider the state-law claims under supplemental jurisdiction, and dismissed the state-law claims asserted under diversity jurisdiction for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It granted leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days and directed the Clerk not to enter judgment while that opportunity remained open. It also denied the motion to proceed under a pseudonym without prejudice and denied fee-free status for an appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.