Doe v. Pa. Dep't of Corr.

• Decision Date: 14 February 2022
• Docket Number: 1:20-cv-00023-SPB-RAL
• Citation: 585 F.Supp.3d 797
• Parties: Sam DOE, Plaintiff v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, John Wetzel, Dr. Paul Noel, Dr. John Doe, Dr. Lawrence Alpert, Dr. Alexander, Dr. Kross, Dr. Obeng, Lonnie Oliver, Debra Rich, Ms. Wagner, Ms. Blakely, Shannon Anderson, and Paluki Reddy, Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

585 F.Supp.3d 797

Sam DOE, Plaintiff
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, John Wetzel, Dr. Paul Noel, Dr. John Doe, Dr. Lawrence Alpert, Dr. Alexander, Dr. Kross, Dr. Obeng, Lonnie Oliver, Debra Rich, Ms. Wagner, Ms. Blakely, Shannon Anderson, and Paluki Reddy, Defendants

1:20-cv-00023-SPB-RAL

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania, Erie Division.

Signed February 14, 2022

585 F.Supp.3d 800

Alexandra T. Morgan-Kurtz, Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project, Pittsburgh, PA, Su Ming Yeh, Adrienne Randolph Abner, Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

Kelly J. Hoke, Yana L. Warshafsky, Office of General Counsel PA Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel, Mechanicsburg, PA, for Defendants Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, John Wetzel, Dr. Paul Noel, Shannon Anderson.

Kelly J. Hoke, Office of General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Mechanicsburg, PA, for Defendant Paluki Reddy.

Benjamin M. Lombard, Keanna Adinae Seabrooks, Samuel H. Foreman, Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendants Dr. Lawrence Alpert, Dr. Obeng.

Aaron S. Jayman, Gordon & Rees, Harrisburg, PA, Matthew DeLuzio, Gordon & Rees, Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendant Dr. Alexander.

OPINION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO PROCEED UNDER A PSEUDONYM

ECF NO. 70

OPINION

RICHARD A. LANZILLO, United States Magistrate Judge

585 F.Supp.3d 801

Plaintiff, Sam Doe, has moved for permission to proceed under a pseudonym. ECF No. 70. The issue presented by this motion is "whether the plaintiff [has] presented a reasonable fear of severe harm meriting an exception to ‘the public's common law right of access to judicial proceedings.’ " Doe v. College of New Jersey , 997 F.3d 489, 495 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting Doe v. Megless , 654 F.3d 404, 408 (3d Cir. 2011) ). The Court finds that Doe has met this burden and will grant their motion.¹

I. BACKGROUND

Doe is a gender-nonbinary person in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) at its State Correctional Institution at Cambridge Springs (SCI-Cambridge Springs). Doe commenced this action under a pseudonym and now seeks the Court's authorization to continue to do so. The DOC Defendants and Defendant Alexander oppose the motion. ECF Nos. 72, 73. Defendants Alpert and Obeng take no position on the motion. ECF No. 77.

Doe was assigned female at birth but currently lives and presents in a gender-neutral fashion. ECF No. 33, ¶ 20. The Amended Complaint alleges that the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections has diagnosed Doe with gender dysphoria, a serious medical condition characterized by strong cross-gender identification and persistent discomfort about one's assigned sex. Id. , ¶ 23. Gender dysphoria is a diagnosable and treatable condition recognized by the American Psychiatric Association and included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V), as well as the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases-10. Id. , ¶ 24. Left untreated, gender dysphoria is often associated with dangerous conditions such as depression, substance abuse, self-mutilation, suicidal ideation, and ultimately suicide. Id. , ¶ 28. Doe alleges, however, that with appropriate treatment, individuals with gender dysphoria can be fully cured of all symptoms. Id. , ¶ 27. In this action, Doe asserts disability discrimination claims pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a),

585 F.Supp.3d 802

and claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on alleged violations of their rights under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

II. DISCUSSION

The Court begins its analysis with the general rule that "judicial proceedings, civil as well as criminal, are to be conducted in public." Doe v. Megless , 654 F.3d 404, 408 (3d Cir. 2011). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) ("The title of the complaint must name all the parties[.]"). Plaintiff's motion argues that an exception to this general rule applies in this case because "Mx. Doe fears that disclosure of their identity in connection with this lawsuit will not only forcibly ‘out’ them as transgender but lead to further harassment as well as increase their risk of physical and sexual violence." ECF No. 70, ¶ 6. Plaintiff seeks an order providing:

1. That the following be held confidential by the parties and their agents: Plaintiff's name, DOC inmate number, SSN, date of birth, and other identifying information such as educational/employment history;

2. Confidentiality on the docket and in pleadings, litigation documents;

3. That all counsel, witnesses, and court personnel refer to Plaintiff as Sam Doe at trial; and

4. Any documents with Plaintiff's name or identifying information be filed under seal. ECF No. 70-1.

To obtain relief such as Doe seeks here, it is not enough that they "may suffer embarrassment or economic harm...."; instead, Doe "must show ‘both (1) a fear of severe harm, and (2) that the fear of severe harm is reasonable.’ " Megless , 654 F.3d at 408 (quoting Doe v. Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate , 596 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010) ). "Examples of areas where courts have allowed pseudonyms include cases involving ‘abortion, birth control, transsexuality, mental illness, welfare rights of illegitimate children, AIDS, and homosexuality.’ " Id. (quoting Doe v. Borough of Morrisville , 130 F.R.D. 612, 614 (E.D. Pa. 1990) ). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has endorsed a non-exhaustive list of factors to guide district courts in deciding whether a litigant's reasonable fear of severe harm outweighs the public's interest in open judicial proceedings. The factors associated with allowing anonymity include:

(1) the extent to which the identity of the litigant has been kept confidential; (2) the bases upon which disclosure is feared or sought to be avoided, and the substantiality of these bases; (3) the magnitude of the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the litigant's identity; (4) whether, because of the purely legal nature of the issues presented or otherwise, there is an atypically weak public interest in knowing the litigant's identities; (5) the undesirability of an outcome adverse to the pseudonymous party and attributable to his refusal to pursue the case at the price of being publicly identified; and (6) whether the party seeking to sue pseudonymously has illegitimate ulterior motives.

Id. at 409 (citing Doe v. Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co. , 176 F.R.D. 464, 467-68 (E.D. Pa. 1997) ).

The factors advising against anonymity include:

(1) the universal level of public interest in access to the identities of litigants; (2) whether, because of the subject

...