Bill W. Doe v. Anthony M. Frank, Postmaster General of the United States of America

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a plaintiff who “report[ed] to work under the influence of alcohol” was not permitted to proceed anonymously because “the stigma involved in Doe’s disclosure does not rise to the level necessary to overcome the presumption of openness in judicial proceedings.”
• noting that circuit precedent had “isolated and catalogued” some of the considerations that its prior decisions have taken into account in deciding whether to grant “Doe” status
• stating that a party may proceed anonymously only in “exceptional cases”
• noting that in SMU it was “because the plaintiffs were suing private individuals rather than a government agency [, which can suffer no injury to its good name and reputation, that] the court found more reason not to grant the plaintiffs’ request for anonymity”
• denying plaintiff permission to proceed under a pseudonym sought due to his alcoholism
• denying Doe status to a plaintiff alleging unlawful discrimination because of his handicap, alcoholism

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).