Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    Raiser v. Brigham Young Univ., 10th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a plaintiff's motion to proceed under a pseudonym in his civil rights lawsuit against Brigham Young University. The appellate court determined it had jurisdiction to review the district court's order under the collateral order doctrine. While parties generally must proceed under their real names, courts recognize exceptional circumstances where anonymity may be permitted if disclosure would result in highly sensitive personal information or physical harm. However, the plaintiff here did not provide sufficient evidence that proceeding publicly would cause real psychological or physical injury beyond potential embarrassment. Therefore, the need for anonymity did not outweigh the public's interest in knowing his identity.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Raiser v. Brigham Young Univ., 10th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    26 views6 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a plaintiff's motion to proceed under a pseudonym in his civil rights lawsuit against Brigham Young University. The appellate court determined it had jurisdiction to review the district court's order under the collateral order doctrine. While parties generally must proceed under their real names, courts recognize exceptional circumstances where anonymity may be permitted if disclosure would result in highly sensitive personal information or physical harm. However, the plaintiff here did not provide sufficient evidence that proceeding publicly would cause real psychological or physical injury beyond potential embarrassment. Therefore, the need for anonymity did not outweigh the public's interest in knowing his identity.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-02-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-4025

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a plaintiff's motion to proceed under a pseudonym in his civil rights lawsuit against Brigham Young University. The appellate court determined it had jurisdiction to review the district court's order under the collateral order doctrine. While parties generally must proceed under their real names, courts recognize exceptional circumstances where anonymity may be permitted if disclosure would result in highly sensitive personal information or physical harm. However, the plaintiff here did not provide sufficient evidence that proceeding publicly would cause real psychological or physical injury beyond potential embarrassment. Therefore, the need for anonymity did not outweigh the public's interest in knowing his identity.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    26 views6 pages

    Raiser v. Brigham Young Univ., 10th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a plaintiff's motion to proceed under a pseudonym in his civil rights lawsuit against Brigham Young University. The appellate court determined it had jurisdiction to review the district court's order under the collateral order doctrine. While parties generally must proceed under their real names, courts recognize exceptional circumstances where anonymity may be permitted if disclosure would result in highly sensitive personal information or physical harm. However, the plaintiff here did not provide sufficient evidence that proceeding publicly would cause real psychological or physical injury beyond potential embarrassment. Therefore, the need for anonymity did not outweigh the public's interest in knowing his identity.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 6

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

    MAR 29 2005

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    AARON RAISER,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY,

    No. 04-4025
    (D.C. No. 2:02-CV-975-TC)
    (D. Utah)

    Defendant-Appellee,
    and
    THE CITY OF PROVO,
    Defendant.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT

    Before LUCERO , PORFILIO , and BALDOCK , Circuit Judges.


    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

    this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
    Plaintiff Aaron Raiser, appearing

    pro se , appeals the district courts

    interlocutory order denying his motion to proceed under a pseudonym in his civil
    rights complaint against defendant Brigham Young University (BYU). We
    entered a show-cause order directing the parties to address the appealability of the
    district courts order, because only final orders are appealable as of right, and, in
    general, an order is not final unless it disposes of all remaining claims.
    Ashley Creek Phosphate Co. v. Chevron USA, Inc.

    See

    , 315 F.3d 1245, 1263 (10th

    Cir.), cert. denied , 540 U.S. 820 (2003). We conclude that this court does have
    jurisdiction to review the district courts order denying plaintiff anonymity
    pursuant to the collateral order doctrine.
    To be appealable under the collateral order doctrine, a district court
    decision must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important
    issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively
    unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.
    437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978);

    Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay ,

    see also Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.

    337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949). We are satisfied that the district courts denial of
    plaintiffs motion to proceed under a pseudonym meets all three of these
    requirements.

    See Does I Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp.


    -2-

    , 214 F.3d 1058,

    1066 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that order dismissing action for failure to include
    plaintiffs names but giving leave to amend complaint is immediately appealable
    under collateral order doctrine);

    James v. Jacobson , 6 F.3d 233, 237-38 (4th Cir.

    1993) (order prohibiting plaintiffs from testifying anonymously at trial is


    immediately appealable under collateral order doctrine);
    Assn of Women Law Students v. Wynne & Jaffe

    Southern Methodist Univ.

    , 599 F.2d 707, 712 (5th Cir.

    1979) (order requiring plaintiffs identities be disclosed is appealable under the


    collateral order doctrine). The district court conclusively denied the motion both
    initially and on reconsideration; the question of whether plaintiff may proceed
    under a fictitious name is separate from the civil rights claims he is asserting in
    his complaint; and the order is essentially unreviewable on appeal because any
    right to proceed anonymously will be lost if not permitted before trial.

    See Does I

    Thru XXIII , 214 F.3d at 1066.


    Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint against BYU and another defendant,
    since dismissed, in September 2002. He alleges that BYU police and security
    officers have at various times stopped and questioned him, and that BYU has
    invaded his privacy and defamed him by making unflattering statements about
    him. He sought to seal the action, claiming that the defendants might believe that
    he had been declared incompetent and committed to a mental institution, and that
    release of this non-public information might damage his reputation with his
    -3-

    employer, roommates, or fellow church members, even if the information was


    untrue. The district court denied this motion. He then filed a motion to use a
    pseudonym, which was denied initially and on reconsideration.
    We review the district courts denial of his motion to proceed under a
    pseudonym for abuse of discretion.

    M.M. v. Zavaras , 139 F.3d 798, 802

    (10th Cir. 1998). The rules of civil procedure mandate that [e]very action shall
    be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a);
    Femedeer v. Haun , 227 F.3d 1244, 1246 (10th Cir. 2000). There are no rules or
    statutes which allow parties to proceed under a fictitious name.

    Id. This court

    has, however, recognized that there may be exceptional circumstances in which


    a party may be allowed to proceed anonymously.

    Id.

    A plaintiff seeking to proceed under a pseudonym must typically show that


    disclosure of his identity in the public record would reveal highly sensitive and
    personal information that would result in a social stigma or the threat of real and
    imminent physical harm:
    Lawsuits are public events. A plaintiff should be permitted to
    proceed anonymously only in those exceptional cases involving
    matters of a highly sensitive and personal nature, real danger of
    physical harm, or where the injury litigated against would be incurred
    as a result of the disclosure of the plaintiff's identity.
    Id. (quoting Doe v. Frank , 951 F.2d 320, 324 (11th Cir. 1992)).

    -4-

    The risk that a plaintiff may suffer some embarrassment is insufficient to


    permit anonymity.

    Id., citing Doe v. Frank , 951 F.2d at 324 (denying plaintiff

    permission to proceed under a pseudonym sought due to his alcoholism). Further,


    because the public has an important interest in access to legal proceedings, we
    have held that its interest should be considered in determining whether some form
    of anonymity is warranted.

    Id. A plaintiff should not be permitted to proceed

    under a pseudonym unless the need for anonymity outweighs the public interest in
    favor of openness.

    See Zavaras , 139 F.3d at 803.

    Here, plaintiffs motion stated only that harmful and prejudicial


    information might be made public and might harm his reputation. He gave no
    further basis for his request, other than a passing reference to his earlier motion to
    seal the case, which suggested a possible history of mental illness or psychiatric
    care. He did not present any particularized evidence, however, relating to any
    mental or psychiatric history, nor any particularized reasons why proceeding
    publicly would cause him real psychological or physical injury. He alleges
    nothing more than potential embarrassment based on vague and speculative
    suggestions of mental illness. Plaintiff has not alleged any threat of physical
    danger and the disclosure of his identity is not the injury he seeks to avoid by his
    lawsuit.

    -5-

    In short, plaintiff has not demonstrated that this is a sufficiently


    exceptional case or that the need for anonymity in this case and at this stage of
    the proceedings outweighs the publics interest in knowing his identity.

    See id.

    Thus, we find no abuse of the district courts discretion.


    The order of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs motion for
    sanctions is DENIED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
    Entered for the Court

    John C. Porfilio
    Circuit Judge

    -6-

    You might also like