Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Doe v. North Homes, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

August 9, 2019

Jane Doe, Plaintiff,
v.
North Homes, Inc., Devin Michael Wood, Connie Ross, John Does 1 - 5, and John Does 6 - 10, Defendants.

          ORDER

          Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge

         Two matters are before the Court. First, Defendants North Homes, Inc. (North Homes), Connie Ross, John Does 1 - 5, and John Does 6 - 10 move to dismiss Plaintiff Jane Doe's complaint. (Dkt. 9.) Second, Doe appeals the June 6, 2019 Order of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois denying her motion to proceed under a pseudonym. (Dkt. 53.) For the reasons addressed below, the motion to dismiss is granted, Doe's complaint is dismissed without prejudice, and the June 6, 2019 Order is reversed.

         BACKGROUND

         I. Jane Doe's Complaint [1]

         Doe was a juvenile resident at the I.T.A.S.K.I.N. Juvenile Center (ITASKIN) in 2014. ITASKIN is owned and operated by North Homes, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation. Ross is North Homes's director and administrator.

         In April 2014, ITASKIN staff detained Doe in a secure unit within the facility as a consequence of her behavior. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Devin Michael Wood, a guard in the secure unit, made sexual advances towards Doe and engaged in sex acts, including sexual intercourse, with her. Wood was arrested and charged with multiple counts of criminal sexual conduct. After Wood's arrest, John Does 1-10 and Ross harassed and punished Doe because of her relationship with Wood. This punishment included continued detention in the secure unit.

         In December 2018, Doe commenced this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Count I alleges, pursuant to Section 1983, that Wood and John Does 1-10, in their individual capacities, violated Doe's rights under the Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by acting with deliberate indifference to Doe's medical needs, personal safety, and general welfare. Count II advances similar allegations, under Section 1983, against North Homes and Ross in her official capacity. Count III alleges, under Section 1983, that Ross, in her individual capacity, violated Doe's First Amendment rights. In Count IV, Doe alleges a state-law negligence claim.

         II. Order Denying Doe's Motion to Proceed Under a Pseudonym

         In September 2014, Wood pleaded guilty to three counts of criminal sexual conduct in Minnesota District Court. A Facebook account posted a news story about Wood's guilty pleas on its publicly accessible page the following day. A Facebook user (Doe) posted a comment, stating, “Nigga that girl was me. . . No. one is gonna bend him over!” The Facebook user's account identified her by name, and the Facebook post remains public, displaying both the comment and the Facebook user's name.

         Doe moved for a protective order allowing her to proceed under a pseudonym in this action. Defendants opposed the motion. In a June 6, 2019 Order, the magistrate judge denied Doe's motion, reasoning that because Doe's identity as Wood's victim was already publicly known, “the benefit of proceeding under a pseudonym has already been defeated.” Doe timely appealed the magistrate judge's decision.

         ANALYSIS

         I. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

         Defendants move to dismiss Doe's complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).[2] To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the operative complaint must allege facts sufficient to state a facially plausible claim to relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). When determining whether the complaint states such a claim, a district court accepts as true the factual allegations in the complaint and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Blankenship v. USA Truck, Inc., 601 F.3d 852, 853 (8th Cir. 2010). The factual allegations need not be detailed, but they must “raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007).

         A. Doe's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.