No Dragon, No Pseudonymity, No Nothin'

From Magistrate Judge Ray Kent's order yesterday in Doe No. 2 v. County of Clinton (W.D. Mich.), the case that I first blogged about because of the dragon logo:

This is a civil rights action brought by a former inmate of the Clinton County Jail  …. On April 28, 2025, the Court entered an order striking Plaintiff's complaint containing a dragon cartoon logo and directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by May 5, 2025. This matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed under a pseudonym. For the following reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion….

Plaintiff alleges that, on March 22, 2024, Plaintiff was arrested for allegedly drinking while on bond and was detained in the Clinton County Jail (CCJ). "[A]lmost immediately" upon booking, Plaintiff began vomiting and showing unidentified "consistent, and objective signs of medical distress." At Plaintiff's bond hearing of March 28, 2024, the District Court ordered that Plaintiff be released from custody due to Plaintiff's "health distress." Plaintiff was then taken to the University of Michigan Sparrow Clinton Hospital, where she was admitted for treatment….

"It is a general rule that a complaint must state the names of the parties." A plaintiff is permitted to proceed anonymously only in exceptional circumstances that justify an exception to the general rule. This is because naming the parties to litigation is more than a mere formality; "First Amendment guarantees are implicated when a court decides to restrict public scrutiny of judicial proceedings." Indeed, "[i]dentifying the parties to the proceeding is an important dimension of publicness. The people have a right to know who is using their courts." …

[Plaintiff's] motion falls far short of establishing that her need for anonymity outweighs the prejudice to Defendants and the public's interest in knowing her identity. Plaintiff is not a child and has not demonstrated that her lawsuit would require her to disclose matters "of the utmost intimacy" or "an intention to violate the law."

Though the Court does not dispute that Plaintiff fears retaliation and harm to her economic interests, "fear and risk are distinct concepts." Plaintiff's allegations that she "fear[s] what Defendants will do to [her]" and that her undefined economic interests "could" be negatively affected in some unidentified way are simply too vague and conclusory to warrant relief.

The fact that Plaintiff has a criminal record and was arrested for a suspected bond violation are already public record. Moreover, cases such as this, concerning the adequacy of medical care while in jail custody, are routinely filed in this Court by named plaintiffs.

Plaintiff states that she does not object to sharing her identity with the Court or counsel for Defendants, only "disclosure to the public." However, the presumption of open proceedings and the First Amendment's guarantees belongs not to the Court and counsel but to the parties and the public more broadly. Ultimately[,] Plaintiff has not shown that her privacy interests "substantially outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings." Therefore, Plaintiff must proceed with this action, if at all, in her full name rather than anonymously….