John Doe v. Robert Ayers, Jr., 789 F.3d 944

Petitioner Doe sought penalty-phase habeas relief based on sealed, graphic evidence of prison sexual assault.
Panel granted relief and allowed publication with pseudonym due to risk of harm if real name disclosed.
State challenged the decision and sought rehearing/rehearing en banc; petitions denied.
Court conducted a narrowly tailored sealing/publication analysis after a hearing and briefing.
Court applied Advanced Textile/ Doe frameworks balancing anonymity against public access, and concluded pseudonym was appropriate in this exceptional case.
State argued Marsy’s Law and possible impediment to review, which the court found not prohibiting the pseudonym or future disclosures to victims’ families.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether use of a pseudonym is appropriate in this habeas case.	Doe’s exceptional case warrants anonymity.	Public interest favors disclosure; no special exception.	Yes, pseudonym appropriate.
Whether the public’s interest is served by publishing with a pseudonym.	Anonymity protects victimized, sensitive records.	Disclosures enhance transparency and review.	Public interest not harmed; anonymity allowed.

United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2008) (limits on generalized class-based anonymity; individualized showing required for extraordinary cases)
United States v. Parish, 308 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2002) (individualized finding supports pseudonym use)
Advanced Textile Corp. v. Does I–XXIII, 214 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2000) (factors balancing anonymity vs public access; high bar for pseudonym use)
Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1981) (principle of public access with limited interference)
Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (public access vs sealed records; standard for sealing)
United States v. Doe, 655 F.2d 920 (9th Cir. 1980) (recognition of risks to individuals in anonymity decisions)