Roe

Roe v. Bright

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 14, 202524-1316California467 words

Opinion

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 14 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD ROE, No. 24-1316 D.C. No. 6:24-cv-00012-DWM Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

CAROLYNN BRIGHT; DOES, 1-9,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2025**

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Richard Roe appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying Roe’s

motion for a protective order seeking leave to proceed under a pseudonym and seal

all records revealing his identity or information about his juvenile record. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the collateral order doctrine. Oliner v.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.