Teri Smith Tyler v. Carter, pro se

by Walter Olson on December 22, 2006

Reader Victor Serby writes, regarding the recent discussion here of baseless pro se suits: “This is the pro se suit that I think takes the cake. It is an oldie, but a goodie. The cite is: 151 F.R.D. 537 (SDNY 1993)”.

Tagged as:

{ 5 comments }

1 Ted Frank 12.22.06 at 6:06 am

I think I’m the one responsible for popularizing this case, first posting about it on Usenet on January 21, 1994, ten weeks after the case came out. Someone took the trouble to type it in (in the pre-linking days, sneakerware was the only way to provide court cases on the Internet) on alt.conspiracy in response to my post, and I then copied it to the old LAWSCH-L list on January 24, 1994.

2 E-Bell 12.22.06 at 10:15 am

The classics never get old.

3 David Giacalone 12.22.06 at 5:10 pm

There are two important points about this case: 1) it’s age helps demonstrate how rare such silly pro se cases are in reality; 2) the Judge Haight did the right thing — he threw the case out sua sponte as frivolous, noting “A plaintiff asserting fantastic or delusional claims should not, by payment of a filing fee, obtain a license to consume limited judicial resources and put defendants to effort and expense.”

4 David Nieporent 12.22.06 at 7:44 pm

Nobody ever accused me of not having a sense of humor, but I don’t find this case nearly as funny as you guys. This isn’t a frivolous case like women who claim that “Eenie Meenie Minie Moe” should get them money; this is a case where the plaintiff is obviously an unmedicated paranoid schizophrenic.

5 Ted 12.26.06 at 8:30 pm

I discuss the case further on Overlawyered Dec. 25.

Comments on this entry are closed.