Keene v. Scottsdale, City of et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jane Doe,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Scottsdale, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-00225-PHX-JJT
ORDER
At issue is Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym and to File Complaint
Using a Pseudonym (Doc. 1), Motion for Pretrial Reasonable Accommodations Pursuant
to ADA Title II and Section 504 (Doc. 4), and Motion to File Complaint Under Seal (Doc.
9). For the reasons below, the Court denies each Motion and dismisses Plaintiff’s Verified
Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Monetary Relief (“Complaint”) (Doc. 10) for
failure to abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In the Ninth Circuit, “a party may preserve his or her anonymity in judicial
proceedings 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.”
Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2000). Courts
should consider factors such as “the severity of the threatened harm” and “the
reasonableness of the anonymous party’s fears,” and courts “must also determine the
precise prejudice at each stage of the proceedings to the opposing party, and whether
Case 2:26-cv-00225-JJT Document 12 Filed 03/10/26 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
proceedings may be structured to as to mitigate that prejudice.” Id. (addressing a request
to proceed anonymously in a case of threatened retaliation).
Here, Plaintiff “seeks pseudonym protection at the pleading stage to avoid
foreseeable harm associated with public identification” (Doc. 1 at 2–3) and to seal the
Complaint that uses her real name (Doc. 9 at 2). But Plaintiff does not identify what that
“foreseeable harm” is and, as far as the Court can tell, there are no “special circumstances”
here. Public knowledge of her identity, without more, does not justify the relief that
Plaintiff seeks. Plaintiff also does not explain how her anonymity would outweigh the
prejudice to Defendants that arises from not knowing Plaintiff’s identity. Accordingly, the
Court denies Plaintiff’s request to proceed by pseudonym and to file the Complaint under
seal.
Next, Plaintiff filed a motion for “reasonable accommodations pursuant to Title II
of the Americans with Disabilities Act . . . and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act . . . to
ensure equal access to the Court and effective participation in pretrial proceedings.” (Doc.
4 at 2.) Plaintiff requests the Court make the following accommodations: (1) to conduct
pretrial matters in writing only, or to the extent in-person hearings are required, to hear the
parties by telephone or video-disabled conference only; (2) to permit Plaintiff “to seek
written clarification” of orders before the Court issues her adverse consequences; (3) to
refrain from issuing sanctions in the event Plaintiff’s filings demonstrate “deviations in
formatting, length, or explanatory detail”; and (4) limiting discovery, depositions, and
meet-and-confer procedures to written format only. (Doc. 4.)
The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff prefers to participate in this matter through
writing, and the Court will keep that preference in mind. Ultimately, though, the Court has
inherent authority to manage its docket, maintain decorum of the parties before it, and
promulgate and enforce rules for the management of litigation. Spurlock v. FBI, 69 F.3d
1010, 1016 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court observes that its general administration of matters
does typically occur in writing or by telephone, but it declines to restrain its authority to
address the parties in-person to the extent it becomes warranted or necessary.
Case 2:26-cv-00225-JJT Document 12 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
As is customary, every action taken by the Court is documented on the record to
which Plaintiff can refer as needed. The Court always endeavors to make its expectations
and directives of the parties clear and plain. While Plaintiff may deem it necessary to file
documents seeking relief or moving to clarify an order, she should not regard her ability to
file those documents as a wholesale ticket to inundate the Court with frivolity on the
account of wanting to provide “explanatory detail.” Plaintiff basically requests that she file
anything without regard for reason or consequence. That is not the way this works.
Documents filed with the Court must arise from either rule or law, not merely from a
party’s whim. Even as a pro se litigant, Plaintiff must comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the District of Arizona, or the rules
of this Court. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995); King v. Atiyeh,
814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).
Similarly, the Court will not cabin discovery or inter-party communication methods
to writing only. As often is the case, the parties may find email to be the most effective and
convenient way to communicate, and Plaintiff is welcome to explore this possibility with
the opposing parties as appropriate. And, as Plaintiff herself recognizes, most discovery is
conducted in writing, such as interrogatories and requests for admission. There are times,
though, when discovery occurs outside the four corners of a piece of paper. Examples
include inspection of land pursuant to a request for production, physical or mental
examinations of a party, or oral depositions. “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
generally allow a party to select the method or methods of discovery and the order of
discovery methods used,” Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel Corp., 308 F.R.D. 656, 661 (D.
Or. 2015), and the Court declines to prospectively limit any party’s discovery at this stage
of the proceedings.
Turning now to Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court observes that it is 159 pages long
and contains over 900 paragraphs of allegations and 46 claims restating some variation of
a single claim arising under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C § 1983. Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a pleading to contain a “short and plain statement of the
Case 2:26-cv-00225-JJT Document 12 Filed 03/10/26 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and demands “simplicity, directness,
and clarity.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996). There is nothing short
and plain about the Complaint, and its sheer volume and tediousness renders it
incomprehensible.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Complaint must be dismissed for failure to comply with the
pleading requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. When, as here, a
defective complaint might be cured, a party is entitled an opportunity to amend it before the
action is dismissed. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127–30. Therefore, Plaintiff may, if she so
chooses, amend her pleading to make clear her allegations in short, plain statements for each
claim for relief, identify which specific defendants are responsible for the conduct giving rise
to each claim, the damages resulting from that conduct, and the basis for this Court’s
jurisdiction. Those statements should be made “in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far
as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym and to
File Complaint Using a Pseudonym (Doc. 1) and directing the Clerk of Court not to file
the Verified Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Monetary Relief currently lodged
at Doc. 2.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Pretrial Reasonable
Accommodations Pursuant to ADA Title II and Section 504 (Doc. 4).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to File Complaint Under
Seal (Doc. 9) and directing the Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint for
Declaratory, Injunctive, and Monetary Relief currently lodged under seal at Doc. 10 on the
public record.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint for
Declaratory, Injunctive, and Monetary Relief currently lodged under seal at Doc. 10.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than fourteen days from the date of
this Order, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint to cure the pleading defects identified
Case 2:26-cv-00225-JJT Document 12 Filed 03/10/26 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
herein. If Plaintiff fails to do so, the Clerk of Court shall dismiss this matter without further
notice.
Dated this 9th day of March, 2026.
Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge
Case 2:26-cv-00225-JJT Document 12 Filed 03/10/26 Page 5 of 5