Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
AIR FORCE OFFICER,
Plaintiff,
v.
LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, individually and in his
official capacity as Secretary of Defense;
FRANK KENDALL, III, individually and his
official capacity as Secretary of the Air Force; and
ROBERT I. MILLER, individually and his official
capacity as Surgeon General of the Air Force,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
5:22-cv-00009-TES
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY
In its most general sense, this lawsuit is about an Air Force officer’s challenge to
the Department of Defense’s COVID-19 vaccine requirement on grounds that receiving
any of the currently available vaccines violates her sincerely held religious beliefs. [Doc.
1, ¶¶ 51–56]. Arguing that her claims pose a risk to her personal safety and security and
involve disclosure of information of the utmost intimacy, Plaintiff asks the Court to
waive the requirement that “[t]he title of the complaint . . . name all the parties[.]” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 10(a); [Doc. 3-1, pp. 1–2]; see also [Doc. 1, ¶ 19]. Although Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 10 creates a “strong presumption in favor of parties proceeding in their own
Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES Document 52 Filed 02/15/22 Page 1 of 6
2
name . . . the rule is not absolute,” and a party make seek leave to proceed
anonymously. Plaintiff B. v. Francis, 631 F.3d 1310, 1315 (11th Cir. 2011). However, “[i]t
is the exceptional case in which a plaintiff may proceed under a fictitious name.” Doe v.
Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 232 (11th Cir. 1992).
Rule 10 is the starting point, and that rule will require Plaintiff to disclose her
name unless she can “move the needle toward anonymity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a); see also
Order Denying Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously, Coker v. Austin, No. 3:21-cv-
01211-AW-HTC, (N.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2021), ECF No. 49. The first step in determining
whether the needle moves in that direction looks to whether a plaintiff’s claims
challenge governmental activity and whether a plaintiff, absent anonymity, would be
compelled to disclose information of the utmost intimacy or admit her intention to
engage in illegal conduct and risk criminal prosecution. Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 185
(5th Cir. Unit A Aug. 1981); see also S. Methodist Univ. Ass’n v. Wynne & Jaffe, 599 F.2d
707, 712 (5th Cir. 1979) (“SMU”). However, these three considerations—more aptly
known as the SMU factors—aren’t all that’s required for determining whether Rule
10(a)’s name requirement can be waived. See In re: Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., 965 F.3d
1238, 1247 n.5 (11th Cir. 2020) (citing Plaintiff B., 631 F.3d at 1316). Consistent with
Eleventh Circuit case law, Plaintiff argues in her Motion for Leave to Proceed
Anonymously [Doc. 3] that anonymity—because it requires the Court to strike a balance
between her privacy concerns and the “customary and constitutionally-embedded
Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES Document 52 Filed 02/15/22 Page 2 of 6
3
presumption of openness in judicial proceedings”—is a totality-of-the-circumstances
question. Frank, 951 F.2d at 323 (quoting Stegall, 653 F.2d at 186); see also Chiquita Brands,
965 F.3d at 1247 n.5; [Doc. 3-1, p. 1].
Recognizing her burden to establish that her “privacy rights outweigh the
presumption of judicial openness[,]” Plaintiff argues that because she must disclose her
vaccination status and attest to the “quintessentially private” nature of her sincere
religious beliefs she should be granted leave to proceed anonymously. Chiquita Brands,
F.3d at 1247; Stegall, 653 F.3d at 186; see generally [Doc. 3-1]. In opposing her request for
leave, Defendants view Plaintiff’s challenge to the Department of Defense’s COVID-19
vaccine requirement as “neutral at best.”[Doc. 37, p. 4]. The Court is inclined to agree
with that argument. Even though Plaintiff’s claims clearly challenge governmental
activity, the Eleventh Circuit has never suggested “that there is more reason to grant a
plaintiff’s request for anonymity if the plaintiff is suing the government.” Frank, 951
F.2d at 324. So, in order for Plaintiff to continue to proceed anonymously, something
else will have to pull the needle towards anonymity.
Plaintiff argues that personal safety and security, disclosure of her vaccination
status, and attestation to her religious beliefs are sufficient to do so. [Doc. 3-1, p. 2].
While Plaintiff claims that divulging her vaccination status is of the utmost intimacy,
that really isn’t what the Eleventh Circuit had in mind for the second of the SMU
factors. Instead, that factor aims to “protect[] . . . very private matters” like mental
Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES Document 52 Filed 02/15/22 Page 3 of 6
4
illness, issues of abortion, or the identity of minors coerced to engage in sexually
explicit conduct. Frank, 951 F.2d at 324; Plaintiff B, 631 F.3d at 1316–17; SMU, 599 F.2d at
712–13. “Vaccination status simply is not at that level.” Order Denying Motion for
Leave to Proceed Anonymously, Coker v. Austin, No. 3:21-cv-01211-AW-HTC, (N.D. Fla.
Dec. 1, 2021), ECF No. 49.
However, rather than discount her request on those ends, the Court must
consider Plaintiff’s “social stigma” concerns as well. See Doe v. Neverson, 820 F. App’x
984, 988 (11th Cir. 2020). After all, she does argue that personal safety and security as
well as attestation to her religious beliefs are highly relevant because of a social “climate
[that is] generally hostile to those who decline [a COVID-19] vaccine for any reason.”
[Doc. 3-1, p. 2]. Here, based on the evidence Plaintiff presented, the Court concludes
that it is sufficient to warrant anonymity.
At the national level, the President of the United States commented that the
country’s collective patience with unvaccinated Americans is “wearing thin.”1 This
sentiment trickles down though our country’s other high-ranking political officials, our
national media outlets, and into our local media outlets as well.
1 The White House, Remarks by President Biden on Fighting the COVID-19 Pandemic,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/09/09/remarks-by-president-biden-
on-fighting-the-covid-19-pandemic-3/ (last visited Feb. 15, 2022).
Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES Document 52 Filed 02/15/22 Page 4 of 6
5
For example, a local news station’s2 report on Plaintiff’s challenge to the COVID-
19 vaccination requirement sparked several comments from members of Plaintiff’s local
community. Social media is a breeding ground for social-stigma commentary, and
Plaintiff’s situation is a prime example. Flippant comments like, “That’s cool . . . let [t]he
Holy Spirit see to her when and if she should get sick[,]” play directly into Plaintiff’s
reasonable concerns about “animus against [her],” her personal safety and security, and
“serious social stigmatization.” [Doc. 47, pp. 4–5]; [Doc. 49, p. 1]; [Doc. 47-1, Air Force
Officer Decl., ¶ 2]. Moreover, people have already used phrases like “cult dumbassery”
and “[r]eligious nut jobs” regarding Plaintiff’s underlying claims which are without
question controversial topics of discussion. [Doc. 48, p. 1]; [Doc. 49, p. 1].
The culmination of Plaintiff’s evidence shows that there has already been an
influx—albeit small—of commentary directed specifically at her case. Based on that, the
Court sees no reason to invite what could become even more hostile and directly
targeted commentary by forcing her to disclose her identity. The Court is confident that
the public’s interest regarding Plaintiff’s free exercise claims can be served without the
general public knowing who she is. [Doc. 47, pp. 7–8].
Consistent with Plaintiff’s arguments, the Court has previously recognized that
“religion is perhaps [a] quintessentially private matter” and in doing so, it respected the
2 13 MWAZ, Robins Air Force Base officer files lawsuit challenging vaccine mandate,
https://www.13wmaz.com/article/news/local/robins-air-force-base/robins-officer-files-lawsuit-
challenging-vaccine-mandate-2/93-c64a69ff-821d-47e8-9ffa-386d8c809e53 (last visited Feb. 15, 2022).
Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES Document 52 Filed 02/15/22 Page 5 of 6
6
fact that “a plaintiff should be allowed to proceed anonymously in a case against the
government” if religion is on the table.3 Doe v. Reyes 1, No. 5:19-cv-320-TES, 2019 WL
12493582, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 19, 2019) (quoting Doe v. Barrow Cnty., 219 F.R.D. 189,
193–94 (N.D. Ga. 2003)); see also [Doc. 47, pp. 2–5 (discussing Reyes 1, 2019 WL
12493582)]. Having carefully considered the SMU factors as well as the overall
circumstances of this case, the evidence Plaintiff submitted is sufficient to warrant
anonymity. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS her Motion for Leave to Proceed
Anonymously [Doc. 3].
SO ORDERED, this 15th day of February, 2022.
S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3 By that same token, though, the Court is also aware that leave to proceed anonymously requires more
than “[t]he risk that a plaintiff may suffer some embarrassment[.]” Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 324 (11th
Cir. 1992). However, in the Court’s opinion, this record is sufficient to support a finding that Plaintiff will
suffer more than some embarrassment if she is not allowed to proceed anonymously.
Case 5:22-cv-00009-TES Document 52 Filed 02/15/22 Page 6 of 6