Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN DOE, Case No.: 26-CV-2827 JLS (DDL)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 3) 16 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed Under 18 Pseudonym (“Mot.,” ECF No. 3). Defendant County of San Diego has not opposed the 19 motion. See generally Docket. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for the reasons 20 that follow. 21 BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff filed a Complaint (“Compl.,” ECF No. 1) alleging that he was physically 23 and sexually assaulted at Vista Detention Facility (“VDF”). Compl. at 2. Plaintiff claims 24 that VDF correctional officers were on notice that Plaintiff was “vulnerable to attacks by 25 other inmates” and “had been attacked by other inmates of several other occasions.” Id. 26 But the officers failed to take “reasonable or appropriate action” to ensure Plaintiff’s safety 27 from these attacks. Id. 28 / / / 1 LEGAL STANDARD 2 “District courts have broad discretion in determining whether parties may proceed 3 anonymously. Although the ‘normal presumption is for parties to use their real names,’ 4 special circumstances may warrant anonymity, such as claims that involve ‘sensitive and 5 highly personal issues.’” E.A.R.R. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 20-CV-2146 TWR 6 (BGS), 2021 WL 5177775, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2021) (first citing Does I thru XXIII v. 7 Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000); and then citing Doe v. 8 Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010)). “A 9 party may proceed anonymously if ‘the party’s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to 10 the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.’” Id. (citing 11 Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d at 1068). 12 DISCUSSION 13 Because matters of sexual assault are particularly sensitive, Plaintiff argues that the 14 Court should allow him to proceed under pseudonym. Mot. at 3–4. The Court agrees. 15 Courts have allowed plaintiffs to proceed under pseudonyms in three situations: 16 when (1) identification creates a risk of retaliatory harm, (2) anonymity is required to 17 protect privacy in sensitive and personal situations, and (3) the anonymous party, 18 compelled to admit to illegal conduct, risks criminal prosecution. Advanced Textile Corp., 19 214 F.3d at 1068. The allegations here certainly fall into the second category. Indeed, 20 courts within the Ninth Circuit “uniformly allow plaintiffs alleging sexual assault to 21 proceed under pseudonyms.” N.S. by and through Marble v. Rockett, No. 3:16-CV-2171- 22 AC, 2017 WL 1365223, at *2 (D. Or. Apr. 10, 2017) (collecting cases). And as Defendant 23 has not opposed this Motion, the Court finds no prejudice towards them in granting it. 24 Lastly, the Court finds no reason why the public’s interest in Plaintiff’s identity outweighs 25 Plaintiff’s interest in anonymity. See Doe v. Penzato, No. CV10–5154 MEJ, 2011 WL 26 1833007, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2011) (“‘[T]he public generally has a strong interest in 27 protecting the identities of sexual assault victims so that other victims will not be deterred 28 from reporting such crimes.’” (quoting Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193, 195 (E.D. N.Y. 1 2006))). 2 CONCLUSION 3 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 3). The 4 || Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff may proceed using the name “John Doe” throughout 5 || this action. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: September 2, 2026 9 on. Janis L. Sammartino 10 United States District Judge 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28