From the judgement of Magistrate Alice Senechal ND Human Rights Coalition v. Patriot Frontwas decided in private earlier this year, but has since been made public (with minor redactions) in response to my motion to de-publicize it (I am writing about this now in conjunction with my post about the recent decision denying the motion to dismiss the case).
Plaintiff has filed an ex parte motion for permission for “Plaintiff Doe” to proceed under an assumed name for his protection. [redacted] Physical safety and personal privacy.
The North Dakota Human Rights Coalition, the Immigrant Development Center, and Plaintiff Doe filed a complaint on September 1, 2023 against the group Patriot Front, Thomas Rousseau, Trevor Valesk, and 10 other individuals. Plaintiffs allege multiple claims under 42 USC §§ 1985, 1986, and 1981, as well as claims of embezzlement, trespass, trespass to chattels, and civil conspiracy. According to the complaint, on September 3 and September 5, 2022, individuals affiliated with Patriot Front trespassed and vandalized the International Market Plaza in Fargo, North Dakota. The complaint describes International Market Plaza as a large indoor community space filled with shops, restaurants, and grocery stores owned by immigrants from Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America.
According to photos attached to the complaint, in September 2022, the market’s facade and several murals were defaced with Patriotic Front links spray painted on them…
Historically, courts have allowed the use of pseudonyms when there is a risk of retaliation if a party’s identity is revealed. Specific incidents of violence or vandalism in the past have been found to indicate a risk of retaliation. Fear of retaliation is sufficient to satisfy this element. This element also takes into account the risk that an innocent non-party will suffer physical or mental harm from retaliation.
Plaintiff alleges that if Plaintiff Doe’s identity is identified, she will be at risk of retaliatory physical or psychological harm. [redacted] and [redacted] The plaintiffs support their claims with various quotations from the Patriot Front website, including a statement from the website that reads, “Patriot Front’s mission today is to force a ‘hard reset’ of the nation — a return to the traditions and virtues of our homeland.” [European] Our ancestors “left their homeland in Europe”… [and who] “We have found a common purpose and a common identity as Americans,” the plaintiffs argue. “Patriot Front is[t]To be an American is to be the descendant of conquerors… This unique identity [European] This national spirit, inherited from our forefathers, is still firmly rooted in our blood.”
Additionally, the plaintiffs’ complaint includes citations from Patriot Front’s website that cite instances of harassment and the risk of retaliatory physical or psychological harm to Plaintiff Doe if identified. “According to the manifesto posted on Patriot Front’s website, only those who belong to ‘Our Ancestors’ are American,” the complaint states. [European] We are people, people who share a common spirit that permeates us all. [European] “Greater Civilizations and the European Diaspora”
The plaintiffs allege that the manifesto espouses the rhetoric of white supremacy, advocates for a “brave generation that will fearlessly confront any threat to our collective interests,” and “denies our right to freedom of expression.” [European] The complaint also alleges that “the group’s online propaganda includes phrases such as ‘Embrace violence,’ ‘Become war,’ and ‘Train with your friends. Fight the enemy.'” The complaint further alleges that Patriot Front members have previously threatened immigrant communities across the United States, including Fargo, and that the most recent threat against Fargo’s immigrant community occurred after an “unidentified man” killed a Fargo police officer in July 2023.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff Doe is the executive director of the Immigrant Development Center, which owns the International Market Plaza building. [redacted] Doe is a Muslim Somali immigrant who moved to the United States in 1997 and became a citizen in 2003. [redacted] I am afraid of harassment or intimidation [redacted] The complaint also states that Plaintiff Doe fears that she will be subjected to retaliatory harm from Defendants. [redacted] Possibly share [redacted] According to the complaint, the defendants are formally targeting individuals who share the same identity as Plaintiff Doe.
Based on the allegations and supporting evidence in Plaintiff’s Complaint and Ex Parte Motion, Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff Doe’s race, religion, and immigration status: [redacted] that identification would pose a risk of retaliatory physical or psychological harm to Plaintiff Doe; [redacted] Family, and [redacted] community….
Courts have considered whether a plaintiff is vulnerable based on age, and if the plaintiff is not a minor, courts generally consider whether to allow the plaintiff to file the lawsuit anonymously. While age is the most common consideration for vulnerability, it need not be the only consideration. In this case, the Court looked to Plaintiff Doe’s race, religion, and immigration status as indicators of vulnerability. [redacted] Particularly Vulnerable. Based on Plaintiff’s allegations and the supporting evidence in the Complaint and Ex Parte Motion, and taking into account Plaintiff Doe’s race, religion, and immigrant status, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has demonstrated that Plaintiff Doe is particularly vulnerable….
In most of the cases cited, the parties requested the use of pseudonyms,
To protect the identities of the parties from the public. Plaintiff Doe here requests that a pseudonym be used to protect his identity. [redacted] Not only do they hide their identities from the public, but more importantly, [redacted] Right to conceal identity from defendant. Because defendants generally have a right to know who is suing them, the Court must determine whether Plaintiff Doe’s request to use a pseudonym would unfairly prejudice Defendant. In determining whether Defendant would be unfairly prejudiced under these circumstances, the Court will consider whether Defendant would have a harder time participating in the litigation if Plaintiff Doe were allowed to continue to use a pseudonym.
The Complaint does not include any claims brought solely on behalf of Plaintiff Doe. The claims relate to International Market Plaza and the community that utilizes the market space. Based on the nature of the allegations, the location and time of the alleged vandalism, and the photographs of the vandalism, it appears that the Defendants may adequately defend against the claims even without knowledge of Plaintiff Doe’s identity. Moreover, if, as Plaintiff suggests, the Defendants subsequently demonstrate a need to know Plaintiff Doe’s identity, the Court may consider issuing an appropriate protective order.
However, the court asked Doe to be identified in court because, “[C]Courts tasked with resolving anonymous motions must be provided with the real names of the anonymous parties “under seal” in order to properly verify whether there are grounds for challenge.
Furthermore, my motion is for an order granting the pseudonym and for the unsealing of plaintiff’s motion for a pseudonym, and I have not filed a motion opposing the granting of the pseudonym itself.
