JANE DOE V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HE, No. 12-17239 (9th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 23 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JANE DOE, No. 12-17239 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:12-cv-00532-CKJ v. MEMORANDUM * UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 16, 2013 ** Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Jane Doe appeals pro se from the district court s order denying her motion for leave to proceed anonymously. We have jurisdiction under the collateral order * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). doctrine. Does I Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1065-67 (9th Cir. 2000). We review for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 1069. We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Doe leave to proceed anonymously where there were insufficiently unusual circumstances justifying anonymity, and where Doe failed to redact her true name in documents filed in the district court. Id. at 1067-68 (a party may proceed anonymously in judicial proceedings only in special circumstances when the party s need for anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public s interest in knowing the party s identity ). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Doe s motion for reconsideration because Doe failed to establish a basis warranting reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration). AFFIRMED. 2 12-17239

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.