Summary Judgment v. Sua Sponte For 1915 Cases
Hilary
plaintiff is different for a non-IFP plaintiff, and that discovery
instruments available to non-IFP plaintiffs can be denied to IFP
plaintiffs on the basis of IFP status and IFP status alone ("We note,
however, the irony in allowing an IFP litigant to pursue a claim under
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915 because it arguably has some merit, but
concomitantly providing no vehicle to present necessary witnesses at
trial in order to prove the evidentiary basis of his claim," 1 F3d
1244, Bernyk v. U.S.)--
And adding my recent experience with the new judge presiding over my
case, and the fact that the rhetoric of his rulings has become
gratuitously insulting--in addition to the fact he currently is
regarded as a little lower than the angels in my state, and that that
alone gives him legal droit de seigneur with even millionaire
litigants, let alone paupers like myself--
I don't understand why my case wasn't dismissed sua sponte back in the
spring. The worst jab is his thinly-veiled criticism of the original
judge's decision to allow the case to go forward at all. I wonder if
the case was not reassigned to him specifically because, unlike the
first magistrate judge, his reputation as a local hero (and
presidential goldenboy) would make his slow-cooker upcoming summary
judgment in favor of the defendants unappealable (he can do no wrong).
(There are big big BIG heavy-hitters who have become notches on his
belt, figures whose guilty-until-proven-innocent status I condoned, in
one case, now to my severe misgiving.)
So summary judgment is really a fancy form of sua sponte dismissal.
But then why not a motion to dismiss instead of an answer, if tons of
case law, not to mention 1915 itself, have established that there IS a
different standard of justice? This is not a rhetorical question; I'm
wondering if the sua spontes are saved for inmates or petitioners who
lack the ability to read and write, and summary judgment is reserved
for the pesky cockroaches with college educations.
Bob
<hilaryje...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Having read case law regarding the fact that "due process" for an IFP
>plaintiff is different for a non-IFP plaintiff, and that discovery
>instruments available to non-IFP plaintiffs can be denied to IFP
>plaintiffs on the basis of IFP status and IFP status alone ("We note,
>however, the irony in allowing an IFP litigant to pursue a claim under
>28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915 because it arguably has some merit, but
>concomitantly providing no vehicle to present necessary witnesses at
>trial in order to prove the evidentiary basis of his claim," 1 F3d
>1244, Bernyk v. U.S.)--
The case you cite does not say that the standards for due process are
different for an IFP plaintiff from other plaintiffs. It is an
unpublished 7th Circuit case and arguably doesn't even apply to you.
It is simply talking about whether a court has to pay certain
litigation expenses for an IFP plaintiff.
>I don't understand why my case wasn't dismissed sua sponte back in the
>spring.
Probably because the judge didn't think it met the standard under
section 1915(e).
>I wonder if
>the case was not reassigned to him specifically because,
[snip]
Cases are assigned pursuant to orders and rules, not for the reason
you suggest.
>So summary judgment is really a fancy form of sua sponte dismissal.
No, it's not.
grendal
> So summary judgment is really a fancy form of sua sponte dismissal.
> But then why not a motion to dismiss instead of an answer, if tons of
> case law, not to mention 1915 itself, have established that there IS a
> different standard of justice? This is not a rhetorical question; I'm
> wondering if the sua spontes are saved for inmates or petitioners who
> lack the ability to read and write, and summary judgment is reserved
> for the pesky cockroaches with college educations.
Hilary,
Here's the definition of Sua Spontes: "n) When a judge makes a
decision on his own observation, without a request made by any party
involved in the proceedings, such orders or decisions are known as Sua
Sponte. The phrase was derived from Latin word which mean" of one's
own will", that is a decision not forced. For example a case in a
single bench court is referred to a full bench court by the judge sue-
motto"
Who brought up Sua Spontes? I'm assuming its the judge who's getting
ready to toss the case.
Cy Pres
<hilaryje...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>So summary judgment is really a fancy form of sua sponte dismissal.
It's nothing of the sort. For one thing, most dismissals for
technical reasons are without prejudice and allow re-filing the
lawsuit. For another, most dismissals are not rulings on the merits,
whereas all summary judgments are.
>But then why not a motion to dismiss instead of an answer, if tons of
>case law, not to mention 1915 itself, have established that there IS a
>different standard of justice? This is not a rhetorical question; I'm
>wondering if the sua spontes are saved for inmates or petitioners who
>lack the ability to read and write, and summary judgment is reserved
>for the pesky cockroaches with college educations.
It has nothing to do with who the litigant is. You insist on taking
everything personally. The rules are pretty clear about what a
dismissal is and what summary judgment is, and that they're two
different animals.
Hilary
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:41:54 -0700 (PDT), Hilary
> >Having read case law regarding the fact that "due process" for an IFP
> >plaintiff is different for a non-IFP plaintiff, and that discovery
> >instruments available to non-IFP plaintiffs can be denied to IFP
> >plaintiffs on the basis of IFP status and IFP status alone ("We note,
> >however, the irony in allowing an IFP litigant to pursue a claim under
> >28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915 because it arguably has some merit, but
> >concomitantly providing no vehicle to present necessary witnesses at
> >trial in order to prove the evidentiary basis of his claim," 1 F3d
> >1244, Bernyk v. U.S.)--
>
> The case you cite does not say that the standards for due process are
> different for an IFP plaintiff from other plaintiffs. �It is an
> unpublished 7th Circuit case and arguably doesn't even apply to you.
> It is simply talking about whether a court has to pay certain
> litigation expenses for an IFP plaintiff.
It's not the only one that discusses this issue, Bob. I knew when I
filed pro se back in February that I would get no legal help (which
was why I filed pro se). I did not know that allowing me to file IFP
was useless if the court would not offer even the most cursory
assistance with discovery. This situation isn't only like putting a
blind man in the boxing ring with one hand tied behind his back, it's
like putting him in the ring with two hands tied behind his back. I
cited this case only because it happened to be one where some
compassionate judge ruminated about the IFP quandary.
> >I don't understand why my case wasn't dismissed sua sponte back in the
> >spring.
>
> Probably because the judge didn't think it met the standard under
> section 1915(e).
There should be some disclaimer that while IFP complaints may be
allowed to go forward, the federal court system will offer no
assistance to the IFP plaintiff in litigating her or his case.
>
> >So summary judgment is really a fancy form of sua sponte dismissal.
>
> No, it's not.
I may be on the lowest rung of people who DO think it is, but there
are other rungs. I've read articles and opinion pieces by legal
scholars, etc., about how summary judgment is abused, and if I
remember correctly, one of those articles resulted in a post I made
about the subject, to which Mr. Jacobs' response about the big three
SJ cases taught me all I really want to know about how I'll (soon) be
kicked out of court. I mean, if you think about it, the sham of a
"little discovery" covers everybody's asses, ends in the exact same
result as a sua sponte order would have resulted in, BUT lets everyone
involved in the decision process for IFP cases go home feeling as if
they have done justice.
(I'm just posting now, at this point, to wrap things up. I'm not
trying to be an agitator, just posting my perceptions as a pro se and
wishing I hadn't believed so strongly that if a person fought hard
enough to right an injustice, this was THE country that would right
it. I'm glad I found out that the U.S. isn't the best of all possible
worlds at 53 rather than 13. So I'm lucky in that respect. Being too
old to become an agitator is a good thing.)
Cy Pres
<hilaryje...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>There should be some disclaimer that while IFP complaints may be
>allowed to go forward, the federal court system will offer no
>assistance to the IFP plaintiff in litigating her or his case.
This and other such conundrums prompted Ambrose Bierce to write, in
his Devil's Dictionary:
FORMA PAUPERIS. [Latin] In the character of a poor person -- method by
which a litigant without money for lawyers is considerately permitted
to lose his case.
When Adam long ago in Cupid's awful court
(For Cupid ruled ere Adam was invented)
Sued for Eve's favor, says an ancient law report,
He stood and pleaded unhabilimented.
"You sue in forma pauperis, I see," Eve cried;
"Actions can't here be that way prosecuted."
So all poor Adam's motions coldly were denied:
He went away--as he had come--nonsuited.
--G. J.
Hilary
>
> FORMA PAUPERIS. [Latin] In the character of a poor person -- method by
> which a litigant without money for lawyers is considerately permitted
> to lose his case.
>
> When Adam long ago in Cupid's awful court
> (For Cupid ruled ere Adam was invented)
> Sued for Eve's favor, says an ancient law report,
> He stood and pleaded unhabilimented.
>
> "You sue in forma pauperis, I see," Eve cried;
> "Actions can't here be that way prosecuted."
> So all poor Adam's motions coldly were denied:
> He went away--as he had come--nonsuited.
> � � � � --G. J.
Wow, at least I smiled. In regard to A Michigan Attorney's statement
that the costs of righting some wrongs are unwieldy (please don't take
this personally, AMA), but that made my blood run cold. Every
generation has different wrongs that can be excused or written off in
this way. And to quote my Canadian friend again, "Do they realize that
if they had accommodated us, we would be productive working people?"
In terms of "costs" of righting social wrongs, this one--housing the
tame and silent, the ones who don't need voices in their heads all
night from electronic boxes because THEY'RE the true sane-- Well, that
cost seems mighty small compared to the monetary and social
devastation caused by housing the "unquiet" with the people whose
souls are, oddly, at peace when the big dark night comes.
Barry Gold
>Wow, at least I smiled. In regard to A Michigan Attorney's statement
>that the costs of righting some wrongs are unwieldy (please don't take
>this personally, AMA), but that made my blood run cold. Every
>generation has different wrongs that can be excused or written off in
>this way.
Yes, and every generation finds that some wrongs that were "too
expensive" to right have become rightable. This is the history of
this country, quite possibly of the whole human race.
At least three things happen as time goes on:
1. We become aware that some things we accepted as "natural" or
"right" were in fact wrong. That happened with slavery in
the US, then with prejudice against blacks, and now we see it
with prejudice against gays. We have nearly won that last
battle -- the people who used to think it gay sex was
"unnatural" and should be banned by law are now reduced to
fighting over whether gays should be allowed to "marry" or
only "civil unions". Other wrongs will be righted as time
goes on.
2. We (as a society) become richer. That means we can devote
more resources to bringing those with difficulties into
productive society. The passage of the ADA didn't _only_
represent an awareness that marginalizing the disabled was
morally wrong. It also represented a time in which we could
afford to divert resources from the "easy" cases (the people
who can make it on their own without help) to helping those
with some disadvantage to become fully (or nearly) members of
productive society.
Yes, I know there are those who argue that bringing those
people into the mainstream has a net economic benefit. They
should read _That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen:
The Unintended Consequences of Government Spending_ by M.
Frederic Bastiat.
We do these things because it is the morally right thing to do
and because we _can afford_ to do so: the resources devoted to
righting this wrong will not leave the rest of us starving or
homeless (for the most part).
3. Technology advances. This is related to #2. Computers and
other advances have meant that we can have fairly cheap
machines to magnify print for those with very bad vision, to
read text aloud for the blind, motorized wheelchairs for those
who can't walk, etc. Assistance that was not possible -- or
available only to those born into rich families, who could
afford servants to help their blind/crippled/whatever get
around in society -- is now cheap enough for almost everybody.
And speaking of technology... have you checked Radio Shack
and/or Amazon? You can now get a pair of noise cancelling
headphones for under $25. They're not perfect, but they will
reduce noise by 75% (about 20db). More expensive ones at
around $70 can do 25db. That would reduce a loud TV (around
90 db) to a normal conversation buzz (65db). Add a white
noise machine for $30-$70, and I bet you could sleep through
anything that wouldn't cause the rest of your neighbors to
join you in your complaint.
There is a line from _Lucifer's Hammer_ by Niven and Pournelle:
(paraphrased) A community has the morals it can afford.
In the novel, this referred to a post-disaster world where the
protagonists had been repeatedly attacked by a very nasty enemy.
They had some captives from the most recent attack. They were on
starvation rations, and could not afford to keep people in prisons, so
rather than kill their POWs they put them to work -- as slaves.
The reader is left with the _hope_ that as that society works its way
out of being always-on-the-edge of starvation, they will be able to simply
house the POWs without forcing them to work, and eventually release them
into society once civil order is restored on a larger scale.
--
Barry Gold, webmaster:
Conchord: http://www.conchord.org
Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society, Inc.: http://www.lasfsinc.org