I filed a motion to dismiss an action brought by an obviously mentally ill plaintiff. His claim was so bad that there was no need for me to file evidence. It was a rambling, disorganized mess that proves the man's history of mental illness, and supplies a long list of grievances against basically anyone he interacts with.
So the judge looked at the man's claim, all one hundred and twenty-four pages of it. He went over it word by word, looking for any hint of a cause of action. And eventually he found two lines that maybe in an alternate universe might support a cause of action, if there is a change in the common law or if a new statute is passed.
"Motion denied," the judge wrote, adding helpful paragraphs about the steps I could take if I wanted to get rid of the claim, as if I needed the court's advice, as if the court's advice were the slightest bit useful.
The judge wants me to engage with this unfortunate individual, to trade productions with him, to drag him in for an examination, to bring motions when he fails to produce documents or answer questions, to collect cost awards and orders that the Plaintiff disobeys, and then try again for a dismissal, this time on a thick, pointless evidentiary record proving nothing other than that the Plaintiff is seriously mentally ill, a fact already demonstrated by the medical reports attached his claim.
The claim is brain dead and the machines should be switched off. Instead, the judge has given it life support. The claim will stick around until it's eventually dismissed for delay.
Meanwhile, the judges wring their hands over how busy they are and how much work we make for them and could we do a better job of helping them manage their time.
I’m a legal assistant for a state DOJ. We have tons of frivolous, incomprehensible cases that drag on for years with the judges giving pro se plaintiffs chances after chance to amend their complaints.
The waste of taxpayer dollars is insane.
I maintain if you represent yourself you should not get a trial by Jury. Judge only. It should be either or.
And also judges should be willing to throw around contempt charges more often for pro se defendants. Instead they let them get away with crap that would never fly.
A really smart college friend of mine got a speeding ticket. Figured out to appear as an expert witness in his own defense and used some electrical engineering theorems to show that radar is inaccurate when used underneath power lines. The fix was in though; the magistrate still found him guilty. (Also, the cop didn’t calibrate the radar gun at the end of the shift that day, which is a violation of their procedures manual; the magistrate wouldn’t dismiss the charge on that either.)
Smart friend enlisted the help of another lawyer, and appealed his case. appellate court wouldn’t dismiss on the radar calibration issue (his lawyer knew the judge, and knew that a long time prior he was serving as the DA in the case that got thrown out for not calibrating the radar at the end of the shift, thereby setting the precedent) but did defer his judgment for a day (to not embarrass the cop in court) then issued a dismissal the next day.
Sounds like time for a visit to appellate court for you, unfortunately. Find a lawyer who really hates the judge you had already and they might enjoy taking your case for free.
The Judge is looking for the dismissal to stick, knowing that this pro se can probably figure out how to file a notice of appeal. A grant of summary judgment following discovery is less likely to be overturned than a dismissal for failure to state a claim.
More work for you, sucks for your client, but I get the Judge's position.
Have had a similar complaint myself, they made spurious claims against Zuckerberg tracking and impeding their emails in addition to their claims against my client. Trial judge gave him his day in court and found soundly in our favor. Plaintiff filed a second case in federal district court, dismissed. They then appealed to Federal Circuit, soundly dismissed, and then they requested cert. at Supreme Court. Dismissed.
I hear your frustration, but really it's about trust in the process for allowing their day in court to be heard. That is just a difficult message to my c suite to fund a case like this.
Even people with severe mental illness deserve to be respected. I know it’s a pain in the ass. Like, been there. However, we as humans in general have historically been awful about discrediting complaints and concerns just because someone is mentally ill. I’m a therapist and have seen both sides- some of the complaints are so wild and clearly not grounded in any sort of reality. There are also a lot of cases of really awful things happening to people with mental illness that are dismissed over and over. I was a patient in a fancy program where some pretty shady stuff was happening but no one believed us. I’ve also discovered a collegue was up to some gross things because of client reports. Gotta give everyone a shot at help, right?
Sure - but respected doesn’t mean humored and we all pretend like the frivolous claim issuing forth from that disease state is a legally justified usage of court resources. There is space for both a dismissal and respect.
ETA: The credibility issues is admittedly a sticky wicket.
How can it be dismissed if there is a line or two the judge determines deserves due process.
The beauty of the US, while not perfect, is the notion that we’re all equal. Rich people who can afford a lawyer already have the advantage. Average Joes regardless of mental health status have the right to be heard in court.
Determining the validity of a case is on the judge.
In a way the logic to toss mentally ill people’s cases could also apply to known liars and folks with a record. Who gets to determine what has value?
I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that in most courtrooms, if an attorney representing a client submitted a 124 page claim that has a couple of sentences of valid claim buried in it, the judge would likely not comb through it to find those couple of lines for them. It’s also my understanding that, at least in principle, a judge is supposed to treat a pro se litigant as they would any other attorney. This implies that if a judge does go the extra mile in this case, they are doing it outside of what they are required to do.
A lawyer has the training to know better while a layperson may not. The US can’t cut off the legal system to on those who can hire a lawyer.
I’m fairly sure the rules of judicial ethics technically require the judge to not give extra support to pro se litigants (even though that may feel unfair) because the judge needs to be a neutral 3rd party, not a partial representative of one side. In practice, judges are often more lenient toward these non-lawyers, though strictly speaking that isn’t appropriate.
While the criminal and some family sections of the legal apparatus have some mechanisms to balance the scales (such as appointed counsel), bringing civil suits is not an even playing field in the US system and that’s acknowledged and accepted explicitly in the design of the process.
My argument is against not allowing folks with mental health issues to participate in the legal system on the basis of their mental health status.
I believe judges should uphold all aspects of the law, even frivolous actions.
The judge can’t just toss it in the trash, there has to be some sort of review to determine the appropriate status.
Ah - I get ya now. Fair enough. We disagree on the scope of that one.
Reminds me of when Ashley Guillard accused that poor professor of those Idaho murders based solely on tarot cards. As long as that took to sort out, what chance does anybody else have? Hang in there and good luck!
You practice in Canada, right? IIRC it's common practice to be as lenient as possible with self-represented participants there. The idea being that, owing to the knowledge gap, you have to give them as much opportunity as possible to give them a "fair" shot.
It sucks that it gets applied with these blatant nothing burger cases, but it's better that than someone who can't get an attorney lose out on a valid case because they didn't know certain things about form or procedure.