Posts Tagged ‘pro se’

Magistrate recommends dismissal of Apple-made-me-watch-porn action

A federal magistrate has recommended dismissal of an action by a Tennessee attorney representing himself who “contends that he should not have been inadvertently allowed to view pornography on the Internet,” and that Apple is liable for not including a default filter against such images on its devices. The plaintiff blames the resulting viewing for a host of physical and other ills, including the breakup of his relationship with his wife, who “simply could not compete with the endless stream of ageless cyber vixens, who ‘never say no’.” His earlier litigation against Google and other defendants likewise fell short. [Sevier v. Apple] [edited Aug. 31 to clarify that plaintiff was attorney representing himself, h/t David N. in comments]

May 13 roundup

“Inspired by man who filed more than 120 lawsuits, Indiana Supreme Court sets pro se limits”

The Indiana high court didn’t sanction an Indianapolis man who has sued several judges as well as many commercial defendants “but warned him that he could face fines and criminal charges if he files new lawsuits” and provided guidance aimed at strengthening the hand of judges “confronted with abusive and vexatious litigation practices” [ABA Journal, Indianapolis Star and more]

Pro se lawsuit demands 2 undecillion dollars

An undecillion is 1,000 decillion, a decillion being represented by a 1 with thirty-three zeroes after it, which means an undecillion would have thirty-six zeroes. A pro se litigant is demanding that amount from Au Bon Pain, the City of New York, and various other defendants over alleged indignities that took place at LaGuardia Airport and elsewhere. [Lowering the Bar, including a discussion of earlier lawsuits with demands in the quadrillions and septillions; XKCD with a discussion and cartoon of just what it would take to reach a total of 2 undecillion dollars, culminating in a galaxy filled with Ted Olsons]

January 17 roundup

Connecticut: judges can review fee waivers

Pro se (lawyerless) litigants in Connecticut with low income have been allowed to sue without paying the ordinary $350 filing fee, and some have made the most of the situation by filing scads of suits. In May, following publicity about the high cost and hassle imposed on targets, the state adopted a law which “allows judges to review the details of a lawsuit before granting a plaintiff… a waiver from filing fees.” A former courthouse employee who testified in favor of the bill was himself named in a subsequent lawsuit by a litigants whose activities he had mentioned, along with various other defendants including the New London Day and one of its reporters. [WFSB via @SickofLawsuits]

According to research by Yale law professor Donald Elliott, early American civil practice empowered judges to review the details of a lawsuit for adequacy at its outset, and before a target was faced with major costs of response. That practice — dropped later during the purported modernization of our legal system — would come in handy in screening out ill-founded or tactical suits, and not just regarding in forma pauperis (indigent-filed) cases.

Suit: quality complaint over escort resulted in trauma

A college student is suing a stripper-referral service, saying the assigned dancer engaged in an illegal act of prostitution with him but did not stay the full hour as promised. Proceeding pro se without a lawyer, the student “said he now needs medical treatment for a mental condition related to the incident.” When he complained to Las Vegas police about the incident, he says, they threatened to arrest him. He “said he also told the company he was incapable of making an informed agreement with the stripper because he was drunk at the time.” [Las Vegas Sun]