Opinion
21-CV-7259 (LTS)
09-21-2021
JUAN P. CHAVEZ, Plaintiff, v. DHS CHAIN/COMMAND, Defendant.
ORDER
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge
Plaintiff Juan P. Chavez brings this action pro se. He names “Homeless People” as the plaintiff and “DHS Chain/Command” as the defendant in the caption of the complaint. (ECF 2.) Plaintiff attaches a document to the complaint that includes his name. (Id. at 3.) He does not sign the complaint. Plaintiff also submits an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) that is missing the second page and identifies the plaintiffs as “Chavez; Totenberg; Grant” and the defendants as “City of NY; DOES, et al.” (ECF 1) He signs the incomplete IFP application with the names “Chavez Totenberg.” For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff thirty days' leave to file an amended complaint with his real name, signature, and address. Plaintiff must also, within thirty days, either pay the $402.00 in fees required to bring an action in this Court or submit a completed amended IFP application with his real name, signature, and address.
A. Plaintiff's identity
Plaintiff Juan Pablo Chavez has a history of filing actions and signing documents in this court and other courts under fictitious names. See Natural-Unido v. Broad. Corp. Does & the U.S. Copyright Office, ECF 1:21-CV-5586, 1-2 (S.D.N.Y. filed June 26, 2021) (filing complaint under the name “Gente ‘Jude' Natural-Unido” and signing the complaint and IFP application with the name “Jude” and a hand-drawn symbol that resembles a violin); Chavez v. Defalco, ECF 1:21-CV-3497, 2 (S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 19, 2021) (signing complaint with a stamp reading “@rtsmediaink” along with the same hand-drawn symbol); Arco v. Rudes, ECF 1:20-CV-8630, 1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2020) (complaint filed by The People d/b/a Johnny Arco c/o Reason, Logic & Law); Chavez v. Rudes, No. 3:18-CV-2781 (N.D. Tex. July 27, 2020) (complaint filed by Juan Pablo Chavez d/b/a Fine Arts Education Reform a/k/a Chief Maestro Chavez a/k/a Chief Maestro and stating that “Johnny Arco” is another pseudonym Plaintiff uses); Chavez v. Rudes, No. 1:18-CV-1757 (D. D.C. Aug. 16, 2018) (complaint filed by Juan Pablo Chavez d/b/a Fine Arts Education Reform; d/b/a Reason, Logic & Law d/b/a BFlat+ Media Publishing d/b/a Johnny Arco); Chavez v. Finney, ECF 1:19-CV-4109, 2 (S.D.N.Y. filed May 7, 2019) (original complaint brought by “Plaintiff under Seal” and later amended to list as Plaintiff “Juan Pablo Chavez Sui Juris c/o Reason, Logic & Law, reasonlogiclaw@gmail.com”); Maestro v. People of the State of New York, No. 3:19-CV-1215 (N.D. Tex. July 16, 2019) (complaint brought by “Plaintiff under Seal, ” later amended to list “Chief Maestro also known as Juan Pablo Chavez also known as Chief Maestro Chavez, ” and also including the same hand-drawn symbol).
B. Proceeding Under a Pseudonym
Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he title of [a] complaint must name all the parties.” “This requirement . . . serves the vital purpose of facilitating public scrutiny of judicial proceedings and therefore cannot be set aside lightly.” Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 188-89 (2d Cir. 2008). Courts have, however, permitted parties to proceed under a pseudonym or anonymously in limited circumstances. In deciding whether to permit a party to proceed anonymously, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has articulated a nonexhaustive list of ten factors that courts should consider:
(1) whether the litigation involves matters that are highly sensitive and of a personal nature; (2) whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the party seeking to proceed anonymously or even more critically, to innocent non-parties; (3) whether identification presents other harms and the likely severity of those harms, including whether the injury litigated against would be incurred as a result of the disclosure of plaintiff's identity; (4) whether the plaintiff is particularly vulnerable to the possible harms of disclosure, particularly in light of his age; (5) whether the suit is challenging the actions of the government or that of private parties; (6) whether the defendant is prejudiced by allowing the plaintiff to press his claims anonymously, whether the nature of that prejudice (if any) differs at any particular stage of the litigation, and whether any prejudice can be mitigated by the district court; (7) whether the plaintiff's identity has thus far been kept confidential; (8) whether the public's interest in the litigation is furthered by requiring the plaintiff to disclose his identity; (9) whether, because of the purely legal nature of the issues presented or otherwise, there is an atypically weak public interest in knowing the litigants' identities; and (10) whether there are any alternative mechanisms for protecting the confidentiality of the plaintiff.Id. at 190 (alterations, ellipses, quotation marks, and citations omitted).
Plaintiff's complaint fails to comply with Rule 10(a). He brings this action under the pseudonym “Homeless People, ” apparently seeking to sue the New York City Department of Homeless Services. But in his IFP application he identifies different plaintiffs and defendants as the parties to this action. The Court liberally construes Plaintiff's submissions as a motion to proceed under a pseudonym. Even when construed liberally, however, Plaintiff's submission fails to suggest any reason why the Court should permit him to proceed under a pseudonym.
The Court therefore directs Plaintiff, within thirty days, to submit an amended complaint with his real name, address, and signature.
C. Filing Fees or IFP Application
To proceed with a civil action in this Court, a plaintiff must either pay $402.00 in fees - a $350.00 filing fee plus a $52.00 administrative fee - or, to request authorization to proceed IFP, that is, without prepayment of fees, submit a signed IFP application.
Because Plaintiff submits an incomplete IFP application that names different plaintiffs and defendants from the complaint, the Court directs Plaintiff to either pay the filing fees or submit a completed and signed amended IFP application.
Within thirty days of the date of this order, Plaintiff must either pay the $402.00 in fees or submit the attached amended IFP application with his real name, address, and signature. The amended IFP application should name the same plaintiffs and defendants as the amended complaint. If the Court grants the amended IFP application, Plaintiff will be permitted to proceed without prepayment of fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
CONCLUSION
The Court construes Plaintiff's submissions as a motion to proceed under a pseudonym and denies Plaintiff's motion.
The Court grants Plaintiff thirty days' leave to file an amended complaint with his real name, signature, and address. Plaintiff must also either pay the $402.00 in fees or submit an amended IFP application with his real name, signature, and address. If Plaintiff submits the amended complaint and amended IFP application, the documents should be labeled with docket number 21-CV-7259 (LTS). Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint and amended IFP application to this Court's Pro Se Intake Unit within thirty days of the date of this order. An Amended Complaint form and an Amended IFP application are attached to this order.
No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order within the time allowed, the action will be dismissed.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket.
SO ORDERED.