Doe

Doe v. Blinken

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 17, 20222:22-cv-01841California1,100 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, No. 2:22-cv-01841 WBS CKD 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

TO PROCEED UNDER PSEUDONYM

15 ANTONY J. BLINKEN, in his AND REQUEST TO SEAL official capacity as U.S. 16 Secretary of State; JULIE M. STUFFT, in her official capacity 17 as Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary and Managing Director 18 for Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs; JONATHAN K. 19 WEBSTER, in his official capacity as Consul General of 20 the U.S. Embassy Abu Dhabi; and UR MENDOZA JADDOU, in her 21 official capacity as Director of

USCIS,

22 Defendants. 23

24 ----oo0oo---- 25 This mandamus action seeks to compel defendants to 26 issue a decision on plaintiff Jane Doe’s derivative asylum 27 application. Plaintiffs now move unopposed to proceed under 28 1 pseudonyms and request to seal a document inadvertently filed 2 with an unredacted name. (Docket Nos. 2, 7.) 3 Rule 10(a) provides that “the complaint must name all…

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.