United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge
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.
Jane Doe's Complaint 
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.
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
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
Order Denying Doe's Motion to Proceed Under a
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.
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
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
move to dismiss Doe's complaint. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 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).