ILNews

Attorney again denied use of pseudonym in suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A northern Indiana attorney who filed a lawsuit against Porter Memorial Hospital and its employees following her involuntary detention has once again lost her battle to proceed using a pseudonym instead of her real name.

This is the fourth time the federal court has denied the motion of "Jane Noe" seeking permission to use an alias in her litigation. The attorney was detained in January 2008 in a facility for people who may be mentally ill and dangerous or gravely disabled. She claimed she was held beyond the 72-hour limit, forced to undress for a physical examination, forced to teleconference with her parents, and denied an initial examination with the staff psychiatrist until after a day had passed.

Magistrate Judge Andrew P. Rodovich had previously denied Noe's motion three times and required her to proceed with the lawsuit using her real name; Judge James T. Moody issued the fourth order denying her motion earlier this week in Jane Noe v. Jennifer Carlos, et al., No. 2:08-cv-227.

Judge Moody ruled Noe's objections to the Nov. 26, 2008, order by the magistrate were untimely because she failed to get her filing in within 10 days of service. The judge still considered her objections for "plain" error because of the gravity of the ultimate issue, he wrote.

One of Noe's main arguments was Magistrate Rodovich's Nov. 26 ruling was contrary to law because it was issued before her reply in support of her motion was due, thereby depriving her of the opportunity to be fully heard in support of her motion. But again Noe miscalculated a deadline by excluding weekends. Noe believed she had until Dec. 1, 2008, based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, to file her reply to an Oct. 30 initial response by the defendants; it was actually due Nov. 10.

In response to the defendant's supplemental response filed Nov. 13, Noe should have been allowed seven days to file an additional reply, which would have fallen on Dec. 1 because of Thanksgiving Day, wrote the judge. Even though Magistrate Rodovich issued his order without giving Noe a full seven days to file a reply to the Nov. 13 supplement, it didn't prejudice Noe, wrote Judge Moody. It's clear the magistrate's ruling would have been the same even if he had not considered the supplemental response.

Noe believed she should be allowed to litigate anonymously because she says her future employment prospects will be severely impacted - especially in the legal community - because of the stigmatization of individuals with mental illness. She also argued there are many published cases allowing a person to proceed under a pseudonym; however, none of the cases she cited were in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

But Noe's arguments fail because in the 7th Circuit, litigation under a pseudonym is strongly disfavored and must be conducted using the parties' real names unless exceptional circumstances are present, wrote Judge Moody.

"Although plaintiff believes that her profession makes this the exceptional case, that would mean that every attorney litigating a case involving alleged mental illness could do so anonymously, and that is certainly not the law, at least in this circuit," the judge wrote.

Noe has until May 1, 2009, to comply with Magistrate Rodovich's order by filing an amended complaint that doesn't use a pseudonym. Failure to do so will result in a dismissal of this action, beginning the time for Noe to take an appeal, should she so choose.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT