Anonymous v. Miller
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-01360
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Anonymous v. Miller, Judge Tarnofsky temporarily sealed exhibits and required an anonymity application and response in this habeas case.
Anonymous, the petitioner, and Mark Miller, the respondent; the Clerk of Court was directed to restrict access to three exhibits.
What happened
Anonymous filed a petition challenging custody under a federal law that allows state prisoners to seek habeas relief. The petitioner filed anonymously and pointed to a state appellate order allowing anonymity and sealing, but had not formally asked to proceed anonymously in this federal case.
Because some publicly filed exhibits disclosed the petitioner’s identity, the Clerk was directed to temporarily seal three exhibits and limit access to the parties. The petitioner must apply by June 14, 2024, to proceed anonymously and to keep certain identity-revealing exhibits sealed; Miller may respond by June 21, 2024.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky issued the order addressing anonymity and sealing. The order did not decide the habeas petition’s underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Anonymous v. Miller · No. 1:24-cv-01360
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 22, 2024
Background
Anonymous, through counsel, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petitioner used an anonymous caption and cited an April 21, 2016, order from the Appellate Division, First Department, that allowed anonymity and sealing in the state appellate matter. The petitioner had not submitted a formal application to proceed anonymously in this federal action.
Some exhibits filed with the petition were publicly accessible and contained information about the petitioner’s identity.
Court’s Action
To preserve the petitioner’s anonymity while the issue was considered, the court directed the Clerk to temporarily seal ECF 1-1, ECF 1-2, and ECF 1-17. Access was restricted to the parties until further direction from the court.
The court explained that the state appellate court’s use of an anonymous caption did not, by itself, authorize anonymous litigation in federal court. The court must balance the petitioner’s interest in anonymity against the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the respondent.
The petitioner was ordered to submit, by June 14, 2024, an application to proceed anonymously and to keep under seal exhibits that disclose the petitioner’s identity. Respondent Miller could submit a response by June 21, 2024.
Disposition and Scope
This was a procedural order concerning anonymity and sealing. It did not decide the merits of the § 2254 petition or state whether the petitioner was entitled to habeas relief.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.