The plaintiff in a Third Circuit case decided yesterday filed the case as Awala, and the People of the Philadelphia Religious Community Center, et al. v. People Who Want to Restrict Our First Amendment Rights, Primarily to Intimidate Rather Than Religious Purposes Maintenance on Courthouse Grounds of Illuminated Granite Monolith On Which "Ten Commandments" Were Inscribed Together With Other Symbols, et al.
Despite this creative styling, "Gbeke Michael Awala, who is currently incarcerated at the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia," nonetheless lost. Among other things, the court pointed out, "Awala's pleading in the District Court, which he titled, 'Motion in opposition towards the defendants habitual offenses involving individual rights restriction against establishment of religion despite fact that religious symbol were admissible,' is difficult to comprehend, much less classify." If you want a sense of what Mr. Awala was after, here's the court's summary:
A recurring theme in Awala's pleading is his request that the District Court overturn the United States Supreme Court's decision in McCreary County, Ky. v. ACLU, which held that two courthouse displays of the Ten Commandments violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Awala seeks, among other things, to have all of the religious monuments which have been removed from courthouses "nationwide" replaced. The District Court clearly does not have the authority to overturn any decision by the United States Supreme Court. . . .
UPDATE: Thanks to commenter Ubertrout for a link to the opinion, which I've incorporated above.
The case was dismissed for want of personal jurisdiction, and also on the alternative grounds that the U.S. Marshals had not been provided with instructions on how to serve process on the devil.
That's the sort of genius that separates the pro se prisoner types from the folks on Capitol Hill . . .
Most of the conspirators love to prattle on about “frivolous” lawsuits filed by trial lawyers.
But, really, frivolous lawsuits are usually filed by non-lawyers, who really don’t know the difference.
Indeed, if lawyers represented these people, they wouldn’t file such claims, and they could, at the very least articulate any legitimate grievances these people have in a form that could be cognizable by a court.
But most of the VC, and most of the readers think it is better if the world is run by pro se people.
The judge thought he had the last laugh when the guy was convicted. But the trial lawyer had the last laugh when the court of appeals vacated the conviction because the evidence didn't support the conviction (i.e., the guy was innocent).
Mayo v. Satan &His Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D.P.A. 1971)
also at: 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10548
And when the lawyers refuse to file the frivolous lawsuit for the plaintiff, they become part of the ever-growing conspiracy and get added to the list of defendants.
In the late 70s I was defending in a fairly high profile murder trial which went on for more than a year and had a lot of people in daily attendance. I arrived home from court one evening to find one of the most prominent of the trial groupies--a striking six-foot tall blonde, beautiful but mentally deranged--sitting at my living room desk reading my legal papers. She wanted to talk over a lawsuit she was bringing. I mentioned that she had entered without permission. She said she had knocked and gotten no answer and my back door was unlocked. I pointed out that even so she just couldn't walk in. She said she thought I was such a nice guy I would have wanted her to come in and wait for me. I gave up in the face of this unassailable logic and managed to convince her I was busy and sent her on her way.
A few months later I received by mail a fat envelope containing a California Superior Court complaint and summons listing her as plaintiff and naming as defendants me, many other lawyers, including my colleagues on the case, our clients in the case, several Hollywood film stars who supported our defense, many local officials and so on. I never did figure out what we were being sued for other than conspiracy to do something uncertain. The complaint had a lot of handwritten insertions that were not legible.
Perhaps unwisely, I ignored the thing, and never again heard anything about it. Presumably it was dismissed or, if not, there is an uncollected default judgment for several million dollars outstanding against me.
Ah, Washington v. Alaimo, 934 F.Supp. 1395 (S.D. Ga. 1996)
"The motion which Plaintiff filed was entitled 'Motion to Kiss My Ass" (Doc. 107) in which he moved "all Americans at large and one corrupt Judge Smith [to] kiss my got [sic] damn ass sorry mother fucker you.'"
There were some other interesting motions there too. I've referenced it in briefs on occasion when pointing out how frivolous my opponent's positions were.
If the courts have more to do than to hear frivolous lawsuits, however, they should also have too much to do, and too much generosity of spirit, to ridicule the prisoners who seek their aid.
I refuse to accept the vast majority of potential clients, but there are a few good arguments in the stack.
One difficulty is that there's a big difference between a morally compelling claim and a legally compelling claim. I've had clearly guilty and repulsive clients with strong claims, and other clients who I thought got unfairly reamed with no legal claims.
If I think the guy got screwed (either wrongly convicted, convicted of too much, or sentenced way too harshly for the offense compared to other inmates), I am more likely to push the limits by filing a weak claim. Conversely, if I think the guy got a lucky break at trial, I'm less likely to file.
(I can do this ethically because I am reviewing their files to see if they will become one of my clients. I make sure they know that they are responsible for their cases unless I write to them and tell them I will be their lawyer. )
There may be some (3) case has merit but odds or damages mean it's not something an attorney would take on, but I'd suspect that's well under 10%.
The key paragraph against my clients was:
"8. Defendants [long list of names omitted] and each of them violated the California Political Reform Act in that they [he followed with 5 blank underlined lines, which I can't reproduce in a comment thread]."
He dismissed the case voluntarily before I could file my SLAPP motion. :-(
I also ran across several similar types of people while clerking for a U.S.D.C. judge. She referred prisoner pro se cases to the magistrate by standing order, but all other pro se litigants were dealt with as if they were represented by counsel. Some may have legitimate claims, although often their only potential meritorious claims would be state law claims. Others are just cranks. Those are most easily recognized by the fact their suit names one or more other judges, or Congress and/or the President, as defendants. My judge dismissed one such plaintiff's claims against Congress, of whom he demanded "[t]hey must see how the Rotten Federal judicial system call for to be reformed" on the ground of mootness after 12(b)(6) motions were filed by counsel for the House and Senate, since the only relief he had requested against these defendants had already been accomplished by serving them with his complaint.
Nick