John Doe v. Cook

Background

John Doe brought the action without a lawyer against Lindsay Cook and numerous other individuals and unidentified entities. The complaint alleges that, in January 2002, Cook came to Doe’s residence in Manhattan, stayed in a guest room, and sexually assaulted him. It also alleges that Cook later cut her wrists in Doe’s bathroom, scratched his face, and falsely told police that Doe had guns. Doe described a continuing pattern of violence, assault, and false complaints involving Cook and her acquaintances, while stating that additional facts would be provided later.

The complaint named Margaret Laureys, Diana Mari, Lydia McFarland, Carolyn Thomas, Anneke Westberg, “Jay” (also known as Jalal Ismaili-Idrissi), Aziz Beladel (also known as David Cohen), John/Jane Does 1–10, and unidentified entities 1–10, but the court noted that it contained no factual allegations about those defendants. Doe invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction and sought to proceed under seal and under the pseudonym “John Doe.”

Jurisdiction analysis

The court explained that federal-question jurisdiction requires a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. It concluded that the complaint appeared to assert a state-law claim against Cook based on her alleged 2002 conduct and relied on New York’s Adult Survivors Act. Although Doe referred to “human rights violations, human trafficking, torture,” and “federal civil rights statutes violations,” he did not explain which defendants committed those violations, identify the federal statute involved, or provide facts supporting them. The court therefore found that he had not shown federal-question jurisdiction at that stage.

The court also determined that Doe had not adequately pleaded diversity jurisdiction. The complaint did not clearly identify Doe’s citizenship or establish that every plaintiff and defendant was a citizen of a different state. It also did not allege that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The court noted that Doe provided a New Jersey address and Cook provided a Texas post-office-box address, so the parties might be domiciled in different states, but the complaint did not establish the required facts. The court further noted that diversity jurisdiction generally does not apply to a lawsuit between two foreign nationals.

Leave to amend

Because Doe was representing himself, the court granted him leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to state facts establishing the domicile and citizenship of each named party, whether Doe and the defendants were United States citizens, and that more than $75,000 was in dispute if Doe relied on diversity jurisdiction. If he relied on federal-question jurisdiction, he had to identify, if possible, the federal statute involved and explain each defendant’s personal involvement in violating his federal rights.

The court also required a short and plain statement of the facts supporting each claim against each defendant, including the relevant people and their titles, what each defendant did or failed to do, approximate dates and locations, Doe’s injuries, and the relief sought. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so Doe would need to repeat any facts or claims he wanted to preserve. The deadline was March 18, 2024, although the order itself is dated January 16, 2023.

Sealing and anonymity

The court restricted public access to the existing complaint but deferred ruling on Doe’s request to seal the case materials and proceed anonymously. It explained that a complaint that is filed and used in the judicial process is generally a judicial document subject to a presumption of public access. If Doe sought to seal an amended complaint, he would have to provide information showing that sealing was justified under the applicable access and privacy standards.

The court likewise deferred the request to use “John Doe.” It explained that party names ordinarily must appear in a complaint and that pseudonyms are permitted only when the plaintiff’s interest in anonymity outweighs the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendants. If Doe wished to proceed anonymously, he had to provide information addressing those considerations in the amended complaint or a separate application.

Disposition

The court granted Doe leave to file an amended complaint that complied with the order. It directed him to submit the document by March 18, 2024, using the case number 23-CV-10362 (LJL). No summons would issue at that time. If Doe failed to comply and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.