Background
The appellant, a former Colorado attorney who had been disbarred and precluded from representing herself in state court, filed a pro se federal civil action alleging discrimination and unlawful conduct by judicial officials. She filed her complaint using the pseudonym Jane Roe and sought to restrict public access to her identity. Non-parties objected to her motion, and the district court denied her request, ordering her to file an amended complaint using her real name or face dismissal.
The court’s reasoning
The court exercised jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the denial of the motion to proceed anonymously. It applied the standard that a party seeking anonymity bears the burden to show exceptional circumstances involving highly sensitive matters, real danger of physical harm, or injury that would be incurred as a result of disclosure. The court found the appellant failed to meet this burden because her case did not involve matters of the utmost intimacy, she presented no concrete evidence of physical or mental harm, and the injury she sought to litigate was not the disclosure of her identity but rather the alleged improprieties of the disciplinary proceedings. The court also rejected constitutional challenges to the district court’s sua sponte review of pro se complaints and the participation of non-parties in objecting to restrictions on public access.
There is no court rule or statute permitting pseudonymous pleading.
Roe v. Colorado Judicial Department, et al., 25-1264 (10th Cir. June 16, 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the general presumption that lawsuits are public events and that parties must accept public scrutiny. It clarifies that claims of stigma or embarrassment from professional disciplinary proceedings are insufficient to justify pseudonymous pleading in federal court.