John Doe v. K.J. and M.S.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued September 25, 2025
Decided September 29, 2025
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1046
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
K.J. and M.S.,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin.
No. 23-cv-87-wmc
William M. Conley, Judge.
O R D E R
Plaintiff seeks to hold two detectives liable under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for making
statements, when visiting his cell, that may have allowed other inmates to infer that he
has supplied valuable information to law-enforcement personnel. The district court de-
nied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and they have appealed.
The district court entered an order sealing the litigation in large measure, which
effectively created anonymity for the litigants and any potential witnesses. A motion to
continue the sealing during the appeal led to a one-judge order denying that request
but requiring anonymity all around. The result is that the parties have filed public briefs
but not identified the persons involved. After hearing oral argument, this court now

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 25-1046 Page 2
concludes that anonymity is inappropriate given this court’s strong presumption that
adult litigants must use their own names. See, e.g., Doe v. Loyola University Chicago, 100
F.4th 910 (7th Cir. 2024); Doe v. Indiana University, 101 F.4th 485, 491–93 (7th Cir. 2024);
Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin, 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997).
As far as we can see, anonymity for the defendants is utterly inappropriate. Po-
lice officers, prison guards, and many other public officials are regularly sued in their
own names on account of acts said to be unlawful or even unconstitutional. At oral ar-
gument counsel for the defendants consented to the use of their names. Counsel sug-
gested that the district judge may have believed that identifying the defendants would
have identified the plaintiff too, but any such belief is unsupported. The defendants are
police officers who have dealt with hundreds if not thousands of prisoners over the
years. Publication of defendants’ identities would not point to any one prisoner.
Plaintiff sought to remain anonymous out of a professed fear that he would be
harmed by other inmates. Once again, however, claims based on potential harm are reg-
ularly litigated in the parties’ real names. See, e.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825
(1994); Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 775–76 (7th Cir. 2008). Indeed, the table of
contents in plaintiff’s brief, which runs to three pages, includes many decisions address-
ing the potential for retaliation against cooperating witnesses, and not even one of those
decisions uses pseudonyms.
Although plaintiff contends that he is in fear, he does not contend that he has ac-
tually been harmed by any other inmate—and this even though the genesis of his suit is
the assertion that, several years ago, defendants allowed other inmates to learn his sta-
tus as a cooperator. When plaintiff commenced litigation based on this unrealized fear,
he surrendered his entitlement to anonymity. (Contrast persons protected by the in-
formants’ privilege, whose names are protected in criminal trials largely because they
did not bring publicity on themselves by initiating litigation.) Plaintiff cannot achieve
anonymity by himself making allegations that expose him to risk.
In other cases in which we have held that a district judge erroneously allowed
anonymous litigation, we have permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the suit in order to
preserve confidentiality. See, e.g., Doe v. Indiana University, 101 F.4th at 493; Doe v. Smith,
429 F.3d 706, 710 (7th Cir. 2005). The same approach is appropriate here. We therefore
put this appeal on hold for 14 days. If within that time plaintiff dismisses his complaint
with prejudice, the case will end (and this appeal with it). If plaintiff does not dismiss
his complaint, we will put all litigants’ names on the public record and proceed to a de-
cision on the merits.

-- 2 of 2 --