Rabid Pro Se Litigants

Roy Pearson has a law degree and a job as a judge.  We all know him as the man who sued a dry cleaner for losing his pants.  His request: $54 million.  Peterson is not the only person who makes outrageous claims.  There is an entire class of these people.  They are called rabid pro se litigants. 

Rabid pro se litigants, like people who make false criminal accusations, are people so far removed from our daily lives that we don't even fear them lurking in the shadows.  But God help you if they sue you or one of your clients. 

No demand they make is unreasonable.  Millions of dollars for a pair of lost pants?  You'd better believe that's reasonable. 

If a judge rules against them, it's because of a judicial conspiracy - always, always a conspiracy!  Adverse rulings make them do even crazier things.   It was a pro se litigant, Bart Ross, who murdered a federal judge after she ruled against him.  He had an even lengthier hit list of other judges who, by virtue of their ruling against him, were part of an anti-Ross conspiracy. 

And what is being done?  Nothing.  Everyone treats them with kid gloves.

Judges usually cut them an incredible amount of slack.  "Deadline" becomes a very relative term, with pro se litigants be allowed to file papers almost whenever they feel like it.  Each hearing where deadlines are extended usually involves defense lawyer time.  So the person being sued foots the bill for this preferential treatment.

If (almost always, when) they lose, everyone leaves the courtroom as if nothing had happened.  The lunatic litigant isn't sanctioned.  And he will surely strike again.

Indeed, Judge Roy "I'm kookoo for Cocoa Puffs" Pearson was going to be allowed to keep his job, as a judge, even after the details of his lawsuit were widely known.  Only after insulting his boss does he now face removal from the bench.

What's up with that? 

I have never understood why rabid pro se litigants are able to escape unpunished.  Have we gotten so used to our legal system being used as a plaything for petty grievances that even pure lunacy is tolerable?

People who file lawsuits pro se usually have mental health issues, so I imagine there is an element of pity at play. But where is the pity for the poor schmuck who had to pay tens-of-thousands of dollars to defend himself?  Where is the pity for the person who was, you know, actually wronged? 

In any event, courts are part of a legal, not mental health, system.  I do indeed feel sympathy for people with mental health issues, and I support measures to get them treatment.  But allowing them to proceed with lunatic lawsuits is just as bad as letting them randomly vandalize ours homes.

Something needs to be done about people like Roy Pearson.  Allowing them to act out in public courtrooms is not the answer.

What is?

Comments

[S.cotus]

In all fairness, he 1) is an ALJ; 2) he doesn't have a pattern of doing this; and 3) he never claimed that there was a judicial conspiracy. His claims are not really indicative of a mental health problem, nor are they like other claims.

Whether he should lose his job for this is another matter.

[earthlover]

YOU are so WAY OFF in this comment about Pro-Ses being mentally ill, not to mention the fact that deadlines are EXTENDED!! Where do you get off w/that Mike?

I am a pro se litigant in a case where, b/c I missed a deadline, which didn't even apply to me, I now had my case dismissed.

While it is true that SOME pro ses are mentally ill, the WHOLE LEGAL SYSTEM is MENTALLY ill, and if you get caught up in it, it will cause anyone involved severe stress as well as other mental illnesses. I resent your statement about pro ses getting extensions, in my case, and in the case of others I know, this has not been the c ase. In my case and in others I know, WE HAVE BROUGHT LAWSUITS FOR GOOD CAUSE, YET we have not be compensated and our adversaries, have prolonged the legal morass just to aggravate us and wear us down!

Think about this before you write one more word against pro ses in general. Pearson and Ross, are the exception; don't use them to compare the REST OF US!!

And, WE DON'T NEED YOUR, OR THE JUSTICE SYSTEM'S PITY, WE JUST NEED JUSTICE LIKE ANYONE ELSE WHO IS INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, WHETHER BEING REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY OR PRO SE!!! It's funny how this shit istn't pulled when litigants are represented by an attorney!!

[Jeff Gaul ~Albany, NY]

Mike;
do you really hope to make anyone believe that the courts DO treat pro se litigants properly and fairly?

I certainly hope you are not so naive.

More and more, each day, judges are becoming dictators, violating our rights.

Did you not read that the Supreme court just ruled that the lower courts can apply the language of the Constituion as they see fit, ruling that it is an antiquated document and does not apply to modern times??

Do you realize that our freedom is now lost, unless we all act TODAY?

Who do you think is more likely to come to our aid, judges and lawyers, or experienced pro se litigants?

Do you think that crazy things that a few have done should even be considered for such monumental issues? Why would we want to bring up the crazy one's like Wachler? It has nothing to do with the problem, though I agree that the problem is a cause of the craziness.

We all have the same common rights, as provided by our founding fathers.

Do you think that big government and corrupt judges should be allowed to take it away, more and more each day???

[Steve]

How about the inmate suing Michael Vick? That could be Exhibit A for Norm's argument.

[Barry McCarthy]

Mike, what happened? Did you once get beat by a pro se litigant? Or maybe your upset like the editor of www.kentuckylawblog.com because your not getting the special treatment you think your entitled to as a card-carrying member of the good ol' boy/girl network?
See, thats how it happens for pro se. It has been my experience that-more often than not-the trial/appellate judges cover for your ineptness, frivolous motions, and usually very unethical behavior, not the other way around.
"Where is the pity for the person who was, you know, actually wronged," you ask? Not with you.

[Mike's response: There are lots of hungry lawyers out there. If you can't find a lawyer to take your case, then you don't have a case. It is time to move on with your life. There are many other just battles to fight. I have seen pro se litigants lose their marriages and homes in the pursuit of their legal claims. This is madness.

On the flip side: Lawyers do lots of unethical things. We cover that misconduct on this very blog. Thanks for reading.]

[J Smith]

Most of the comments here seem to prove Mike's point, eh?

[bobby_b]

"Did you not read that the Supreme court just ruled that the lower courts can apply the language of the Constituion as they see fit, ruling that it is an antiquated document and does not apply to modern times??"
-------------
Having clerked for a judge through law school, and hung out my shingle afterward, I can only say that Mike is entirely correct.

Pro se litigants get treated with kid gloves (especially by elected judges), deadlines become suggestions (for them - heaven help me if I miss one), and far too many of them either give us legal analyses like what I included above, or the think that EMPHASIS needs to be SUPPLIED by using ALLCAPS for every WORD they THINK might BE IMPORTANT, AND BY THE END OF THEIR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, EVERYTHING IS ALLCAPS AND SO THEY START TO UNDERLINE THE SUPER-IMPORTANT ALLCAPPED WORDS.

Granted, there are many intelligent, well-meaning, able people of good judgment who do go into court functioning as their own lawyer. Hiring a lawyer's expensive, and, frankly, a lot of the stuff we do can be done by others, with some study.

But, man, the proportion of pro se whackos to normals far exceeds the usual distribution.