John Doe v. Polis - Pseudonym Motion Granted

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 16, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

John Doe 1, through his next friend, and John Doe 2, through his next friend, for themselves and those similarly situated v. Jared Polis, in his official capacity as the Governor of Colorado, and Michelle Barnes, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Human Services

District Court, D. Colorado

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:26-cv-01123

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 26-cv-01123-GPG-CYC

JOHN DOE 1, through his next friend, and
JOHN DOE 2, through his next friend, for themselves and those similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JARED POLIS, in his official capacity as the Governor of Colorado, and
MICHELLE BARNES, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado
Department of Human Services,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Cyrus Y. Chung, United States Magistrate Judge, on April 16, 2026.
This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Proceed Under
Pseudonym, ECF No. 2. The defendants do not oppose the plaintiffs’ request to proceed under
pseudonyms and note that the “[p]laintiffs have provided [them] with the legal names of the
individual Plaintiffs in this suit, subject to a confidentiality agreement.” ECF No. 30 at 1.

While “[p]roceeding under a pseudonym in federal court is, by all accounts, an unusual
procedure,” exceptional circumstances can “warrant[ ] some form of anonymity in judicial
proceedings.” Femedeer v. Haun, 227 F.3d 1244, 1246 (10th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks
omitted). “Whether a plaintiff may proceed anonymously is subject to the discretion of the trial
court.” Roe v. Heil, No. 11-cv-01983-WJM-KLM, 2011 WL 3924962, at *1 (D. Colo. Sep. 7,
2011) (citing M.M. v. Zavaras, 139 F.3d 798, 800 (10th Cir. 1998)). The Tenth Circuit
historically has looked to the Eleventh Circuit’s jurisprudence regarding whether a plaintiff
should be allowed to proceed anonymously. See Femedeer, 227 F.3d at 1246 (citing Doe v.
Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 324 (11th Cir.1992)); M.M., 139 F.3d at 802–03 (same). In Frank, the
Eleventh Circuit enumerated three contexts in which a pseudonym is appropriate: “matters of a
highly sensitive and personal nature,” cases involving a “real danger of physical harm,” and
instances “where the injury litigated against would be incurred as a result of the disclosure of the
plaintiff’s identity.” 951 F.2d at 324. Moreover, the Court must “weigh the public interest in
determining whether some form of anonymity is warranted.” Femedeer, 227 F.3d at 1246.

The Court agrees with the plaintiffs that this case involves “matters of a highly sensitive
and personal nature,” Frank, 951 F.2d at 324, and the fact that the plaintiffs are minors is “a
significant factor in the matrix of considerations arguing for anonymity here.” Doe v. Segall, 653
F.2d 180, 186 (5th Cir. 1981); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a) (requiring redaction of “the name of an
individual known to be a minor”). The fact that discovery in this case will include protected
medical information further supports the Court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs should be allowed
to proceed using pseudonyms. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1 v. Douglas Cnty. Dep’t of Pub.
Health, No. 21-cv-02818-JLK, 2021 WL 5106284, at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 21, 2021).

Accordingly, to the extent it asks the Court to “grant them leave to proceed under
pseudonymous names and [to require] all public filings and references to Plaintiffs in this
litigation, including in exhibits, use pseudonymous names,” ECF No. 8 at 7, the motion is
GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall update the Court’s docket to
match the caption on this Minute Order and the parties shall only include the plaintiffs’
pseudonyms on all filings going forward.

The motion also asks the Court to “require the government to maintain the confidentiality
of their identities and prohibit any retaliatory action.” Id. But the substance of the motion does
not focus on this request, and the Court is not inclined to rule on an issue that has not been fully
briefed by the parties. As a result, the Court declines to rule on this request at this time. Should
this issue arise as the case proceeds, the plaintiffs may file a motion requesting this relief.