Summary
holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying anonymity
Summary of this case from Doe ex rel. Doe v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop EstateOpinion
No. 08-15947.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Fernandez's request for oral argument is denied.
Filed January 8, 2010.
Kevin Lynn Fernandez, Lovelock, NV, pro se.
Alicia Lerud, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:06-CV-00628-LRH-RAM.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Kevin Lynn Fernandez, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for leave to proceed using a pseudonym. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Does I Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1069 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to proceed using a pseudonym because there were no special or unusual circumstances that justified protection of Fernandez's identity. See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1012-14 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting a request for a pseudonym based on the nature of the prisoner's conviction as a sex offender "because this concern is equally present for all similarly situated sex offenders who face prison sentences," and questioning the value of pseudonymity where the prisoner's conviction was a matter of public record and many of the documents were not submitted under seal).