Circuit Judge Hamilton, writing for the panel, framed the appeal as requiring the court to "confront the logically prior procedural issue: whether plaintiff may proceed under the John Doe pseudonym or whether he must instead proceed in this court using his real name."
The plaintiff, a student at USI during the 2020-21 academic year, was found responsible for "Rape and Forcible Fondling" by a university hearing panel and suspended for three semesters. He filed suit alleging USI discriminated against males in violation of Title IX, deprived him of due process, and intentionally inflicted emotional distress.
During discovery, the plaintiff uncovered memoranda of early conversations between Title IX officials and both students. The court noted the memoranda showed "at least arguably (1) that John's account actually was consistent over time and (2) that Jane's account was not consistent over time." USI had not disclosed the memoranda to the plaintiff or to any Title IX decisionmakers, "thus calling into question the foundation for the hearing panel's decision on the merits," the court wrote.
On the pseudonym issue, the plaintiff pointed to "vile social media posts that threatened him and his mother with death or physical harm back in 2021." The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's evaluation, noting that the threats were years old, the plaintiff's identity was already known to some posters, "no harm had come plaintiff in the intervening years," and he had left the Midwest with no plans to return.
The plaintiff also urged the court to expand its existing standard to account for mental health risks, citing evidence that he "contemplated suicide in the midst of the proceedings." The court acknowledged this was "a stark reminder that the issue here involves more than embarrassment" and that Title IX proceedings "can have devastating consequences." But Hamilton wrote that "the lines between embarrassment, stress, and degrees of mental illness are not sharp," and held the plaintiff's evidence "was not so compelling that the district court abused its discretion."
The court also rejected both sides' attempts to tie the pseudonym question to the strength of their positions on the merits. "The use of a pseudonym must be decided, at least initially, close to the beginning of a lawsuit, well before a court can ordinarily provide a reliable assessment of the merits," Hamilton wrote. He added that it "would be incongruous, if not downright self-contradictory, to say that the resolution of just such a collateral issue should depend on an assessment of the merits of the case."
The plaintiff now faces the same choice the court imposed in two earlier Title IX pseudonym cases: he may dismiss all three consolidated appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42 by May 13, 2026, or the court will proceed to decide the merits using his real name.