Jane Doe v. United States Department of Health and Human Services;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-17239
D.C. No. 4:12-cv-00532-CKJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Jane Doe appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion
for leave to proceed anonymously. We have jurisdiction under the collateral order
FILED
APR 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-17239 2
doctrine. Does I Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1065-67
(9th Cir. 2000). We review for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 1069. We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Doe leave to
proceed anonymously where there were insufficiently “unusual” circumstances
justifying anonymity, and where Doe failed to redact her true name in documents
filed in the district court. Id. at 1067-68 (a party may proceed anonymously in
judicial proceedings only “in special circumstances when the party’s need for
anonymity outweighs prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in
knowing the party’s identity”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Doe’s motion for
reconsideration because Doe failed to establish a basis warranting reconsideration.
See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63
(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --