John Harnois v. University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth
| John Doe and Pro Se Party John Harnois |
| Peyton R. Helm, University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, David Gomes, John Buck, Cynthia Cummings, Deborah Majewski and Scott Webster |
| 1:2019cv10705 |
| April 12, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Richard G Stearns |
| Civil Rights: Education |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 23, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 27 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying #24 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot #26 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. While John Harnois's Amended Complaint contains extraneous factual and legal information, the parties and court are better served by defendants' filing of a Rule 12 motion. See Defs.' Mem. at 4 n.3. The court directs defendants to file their Motion to Dismiss by August 7, 2019. Harnois's Opposition is due by August 30, 2019. Reply only with leave of court. (mkz) |
| Filing 26 First MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by John Harnois.(Harnois, John) |
| Filing 25 MEMORANDUM in Support re #24 MOTION to Dismiss Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 filed by John Buck, Cynthia Cummings, David Gomes, Peyton R. Helm, Deborah Majewski, University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, Scott Webster. (Barton, Denise) |
| Filing 24 MOTION to Dismiss Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 by John Buck, Cynthia Cummings, David Gomes, Peyton R. Helm, Deborah Majewski, University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, Scott Webster.(Barton, Denise) |
| Filing 23 NOTICE of Appearance by Denise A. Barton on behalf of John Buck, Cynthia Cummings, David Gomes, Peyton R. Helm, Deborah Majewski, University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, Scott Webster (Barton, Denise) |
| Filing 22 AMENDED COMPLAINT 2nd Amended Complaint against All Defendants, filed by John Doe.(Doe, John) |
| Filing 21 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #19 Motion to Amend. John Harnois must now file the Second Amended Complaint as a separate document on the docket. The University Defendants, including the two new named defendants included in the motion to amend, having waived service, all defendants' responses to the Second Amended Complaint are due on Monday July 8, 2019. (mkz) |
| Filing 20 NOTICE by John Buck, Cynthia Cummings, David Gomes, Peyton R. Helm, Deborah Majewski, University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, Scott Webster of Waiver of Service (Barton, Denise) |
| Filing 19 First MOTION to Amend #15 Amended Complaint, 16 Order on Motion for Protective Order,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, #1 Complaint by John Doe. (Attachments: #1 Appendix 2nd Amended Complaint)(Doe, John) |
| Filing 18 Opposition re #2 MOTION for Protective Order MOTION to Proceed Under Pseudonym and for Protective Order filed by John Buck, Cynthia Cummings, David Gomes, Peyton R. Helm, Deborah Majewski, University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, Scott Webster. (Barton, Denise) |
| Filing 17 Copy re 16 Order on Motion for Protective Order, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, mailed to John Doe on 4/25/2019. (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 16 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying #2 Motion for Protective Order; denying #2 Motion to proceed under pseudonym. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) requires that "[t]he title of the complaint must name all of the parties." "This rule serves more than administrative convenience. It protects the publics legitimate interest in knowing all of the facts involved, including the identities of the parties." Plaintiff B v. Francis, 631 F.3d 1310, 1315 (11th Cir. 2011); Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United, 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997) ("Identifying the parties to the proceeding is an important dimension of publicness. The people have a right to know who is using their courts.").In a broader context, the First Circuit has held that a showing of "exceptional circumstances" is required to "overbear the public's right of access" the "starting point must always be the common-law presumption in favor of public access... to judicial records [to promote] quality, honesty and respect for our legal system." Nat'l Org. For Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34, 70 (1st Cir. 2011); see also F.T.C. v. Standard Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 830 F.2d 404, 412 (1st Cir. 1987). In the more immediate context, exceptional circumstances have been held to justify the use of a plaintiffs pseudonym in cases involving "abortion, birth control, transsexuality, mental illness, welfare rights of illegitimate children, AIDS, and homosexuality." Doe v. Megless, 654 F.3d 404, 408 (3d Cir. 2011); see also Francis M. Dougherty, Propriety and Effect of Use of Fictitious Name of Plaintiff in Federal Court, 97 A.L.R. Fed. 369 (1990) (collecting cases). That a plaintiff may suffer embarrassment or economic harm as a result of public identification does not rise to the level of exceptional circumstances; rather the plaintiff must show "both (1) a fear of severe harm, and (2) that the fear of severe harm is reasonable." Doe v. Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010). Doe's expressed "fears" concern his "reputation and ability to secure employment and academic opportunities" and the "possibility of acts of reprisal that could further prevent [Doe] from proceeding with his career and future endeavors." Pl.'s Mem. at 2-3. Doe asserts that defendants, all of whom are university officials, "will likely exploit this publicity and attempt to impugn [his] reputation in an effort to intimidate him and chill this litigation." Id. at 3. The court finds this speculative conjecture insufficient to overcome the presumption of public access, especially where, as here, Doe in his Complaint makes grave and damaging allegations against the defendants (whose names are not redacted), accusing them of, among other things, criminal acts, such as threats and extortion. Moreover, according to Doe's pleadings, his identity as the protagonist in the investigation (in which Doe claims exoneration) described at length in the Complaint is no secret in the university community. Pl.'s Compl. 158, 161, and 499; see also Meglass, 654 F.3d at 410. Finally, if Doe's fears are his future reputational harm, he has to understand that proceeding anonymously for the time being is no cure as the full facts of the case will emerge if the litigation is permitted to proceed. As a footnote, Doe's request that all references to his medical conditions be excised from the Complaint is inconsistent with his claims for damages caused by negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Compl. Counts XVIII and XIX. If Doe intends to proceed with this matter, he must file no later than May 24, 2019, an amended complaint with his name correctly stated. (mkz) |
| Filing 14 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #9 Motion to Amend Demand Amount; granting #12 Motion to Amend Complaint and Seal Exhibit B. (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 15 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by John Doe. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B) (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 12 MOTION to Amend Complaint and Seal "Exhibit B" of Original Complaint by John Doe. (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 11 Copy re 10 Order on Motion for leave to electronically file Pro Se, mailed to John Doe on 4/17/2019. (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 10 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #8 Motion for leave to electronically file Pro Se. The court grants permission on the condition that the plaintiff satisfies all applicable training and other requirements for pro se litigants as stated in the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures, Page 5. The plaintiff is directed to complete the registration form accessible at https://public.mad.uscourts.gov/ecfreg.html (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 9 MOTION to Amend Demand Amount re #1 Complaint by John Doe. (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 8 MOTION for Leave to file electronically Pro Se by John Doe. (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 7 Summons Issued as to All Defendants. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 6 Filing fee/payment: $400.00, receipt number 1BST073853 for #1 Complaint (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 5 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Richard G. Stearns assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Judith G. Dein. (Finn, Mary) |
| Filing 3 MEMORANDUM in Support re #2 MOTION for Protective Order MOTION to Proceed Under Pseudonym and for Protective Order filed by John Doe. (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 2 MOTION to Proceed Under Pseudonym and for Protective Order. ( Responses due by 4/26/2019) by John Doe.(Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by John Doe. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet and Category form, #2 Exhibit A and B)(Coppola, Katelyn) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
