ERIE – A federal magistrate judge has determined that an inmate at SCI-Cambridge Springs will be able to proceed anonymously in their civil rights discrimination lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and other law enforcement and medical entities.
Plaintiff Sam Doe is a gender-non-binary person in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections at SCI-Cambridge Springs, who filed the instant action under a pseudonym and now seeks the Court’s authorization to continue to do so through.
In response, the DOC defendants and defendant Alexander oppose the motion, while defendants Alpert and Obeng take no position on the motion.
“Doe was assigned female at birth but currently lives and presents in a gender-neutral fashion. The amended complaint alleges that the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections has diagnosed Doe with gender dysphoria, a serious medical condition characterized by strong cross-gender identification and persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex. Left untreated, gender dysphoria is often associated with dangerous conditions such as depression, substance abuse, self-mutilation, suicidal ideation, and ultimately suicide,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo said.
“Doe alleges, however, that with appropriate treatment, individuals with gender dysphoria can be fully cured of all symptoms. In this action, Doe asserts disability discrimination claims pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12132, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794(a), and claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 based on alleged violations of their rights under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
Doe seeks an order providing confidentiality for their name, DOC inmate number, Social Security number, date of birth and other identifying information, to be referred to as “Sam Doe” at trial and that any documents with their name or identifying information be filed under seal.
Lanzillo weighed factors allowing and disallowing anonymity, in consideration of Doe’s motion.
“Doe’s efforts to keep their identity and this litigation confidential weigh in favor of anonymity despite the alleged previous disclosure by defendant Shannon Anderson and the fact that information concerning Doe’s sexual identity and treatment may be known to some personnel and other inmates in the prison. While Doe’s treatment makes them appear more masculine, the parties’ submissions do not indicate that Doe has acted affirmatively to disclose information concerning their sexual identity or treatment or this lawsuit,” Lanzillo said.
“The Court also cannot ignore the unique nature of congregant prison life. Life in even a low-security correctional institution presents heightened risks to inmates who are perceived to differ from the typical. Doe points out that at least one study has found that transgender people in jail and prison are five times more likely than cisgender people to be sexually assaulted by facility staff and over nine times more likely to be sexually assaulted by other incarcerated people. Doe also cites data showing that 39.9 percent of transgender prisoners in state and federal facilities suffered sexual victimization in 2011-2012.”
Lanzillo explained that Doe is not a public figure, and the Court “can discern no other reason to believe the public would have an interest in their identity.”
“Having considered the relevant factors for and against allowing Doe to continue to proceed under a pseudonym, the Court finds that these factors weigh in favor of granting Doe’s motion. Doe has demonstrated a legitimate and reasonable fear of severe harm, including inmate harassment and potential assault, and invasions of their privacy that serve no penological interest, if their identity were to be disclosed,” Lanzillo said.
“Allowing Doe to maintain the requested measure of anonymity will not materially impair the public’s right or ability to monitor the proceedings in this case. On balance, Doe’s interests in maintaining anonymity outweigh the interests favoring disclosure such that an exception to the public’s common law right of access to the identity of litigants applies in this case. An appropriate protective order will follow.”
Lanzillo approved the order on Feb. 14.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 1:20-cv-00023
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com