DOCSLIB.ORG

Abusive Pro Se Plaintiffs in the Federal Courts: Proposals for Judicial Control

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Abusive Pro Se Plaintiffs in the Federal Courts: Proposals for Judicial Control University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Volume 18 1984 Abusive Pro Se Plaintiffs in the Federal Courts: Proposals for Judicial Control Michael J. Mueller University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr Part of the Courts Commons, and the Litigation Commons Recommended Citation Michael J. Mueller, Abusive Pro Se Plaintiffs in the Federal Courts: Proposals for Judicial Control, 18 U. MICH. J. L. REFORM 93 (1984). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr/vol18/iss1/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ABUSIVE PRO SE PLAINTIFFS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS: PROPOSALS FOR JUDICIAL CONTROL I. Competing Concerns of the Judicial System . 97 A. The Right of Courts and Defendants to Limit Abusive Litigation . 99 1. Identifying abusive litigation and its causes . 100 2. The need to limit abusive litigation . 111 B. The Right of Access to the Civil Courts . 115 1. Sources of the right of access . 115 2. Protecting the .right of access . 119 IL An Analysis of Judicial Responses to Abuse . 125 A. Substantive Limitations . 126 1. Total denial of access . 126 2. The traditional res judicata response. 127 3. Innovative substantive responses . 129 B. Procedural Limitations . 131 1. Restraints on assisting other plaintiffs . 131 a. Effectiveness . 132 b. Constitutionality . 133 2. Disclosure techniques. 135 a. Effectiveness . 139 b. Constitutionality . 141 3. Limiting the in forma pauperis privilege 142 a. Effectiveness . 143 b. Constitutionality . 144 c. Compliance with congressional intent 146 4. Requiring representation by counsel . 148 a. Effectiveness . 148 b. Constitutionality . 150 C. Sanctions . 151 1. Taxation of costs and attorneys' fees . 151 2. Contempt fines and sentences . 155 III. Recommendations. 157 93 94 Journal of Law Reform [VOL. 18:1 A. Administrative Techniques . 158 B. Injunctions . 161 Conclusion . 165 Since no human being could really generate more than 554 causes of action in one lifetime, one would assume that many of Green's filings have been purely repeti­ tions of previous suits, and so they were. 1 Anthony R. Martin-Trigona is a pro se litigant who has filed more than 250 civil actions, appeals, and other matters in little more than a decade . ... The purpose, nature and effect of Anthony R. Martin-Trigona's career in litigation is simply to multiply litigation. Martin-Trigona has managed to have a significant ma­ lign effect on judicial administration to the prejudice of others seeking justice . .2 On June 23, 1983, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut permanently enjoined Anthony R. Martin-Trigona from filing a complaint in any court without first obtaining leave of such court.3 Six days earlier, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida perma­ nently enjoined Robert Procup, a state prison inmate, from filing a complaint, whether for himself or another, unless it is submitted on behalf of Procup by an attorney.4 In 1976, the Rev. Clovis Carl Green, Jr. was forbidden to act as a "writ-writer" or "jailhouse lawyer" for any other inmate within the Missouri pe- 1. Green v. Arnold, 512 F. Supp. 650, 651 (W.D. Tex. 1981) (referring to the Rev. Clovis Carl Green, Jr., who has filed between 600 and 700 complaints in the federal and state courts); see also In re Green, 669 F.2d 779, 781 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (per curiam) ("Clo­ vis Carl Green is in all likelihood the most prolific prisoner litigant in recorded his­ tory."); Green v. Camper, 477 F. Supp. 758, 759-68 (W.D. Mo. 1979) (listing over 500 cases); Green v. Garrott, 71 F.R.D. 680 (W.D. Mo. 1976) (listing over 200 cases). Green has also drafted hundreds of complaints ostensibly on behalf of other inmates. See infra note 181 and accompanying text. 2. In re Martin-Trigona, 573 F. Supp. 1245, 1261, 1264, 1265 (D. Conn. 1983) (em­ phasis in original), aff'd in part, vacated in part, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1984) (vacating requirement that plaintiff obtain prior leave to file any action in state courts), on re­ mand, 592 F. Supp. 1566 (D. Conn. 1984). 3. Id. at 1267. 4. Procup v. Strickland, 567 F. Supp. 146, 150-51 (M.D. Fla. 1983) (citing 176 cases filed by Procup since 1977 in the Jacksonville Division of the Middle District of Florida) ("[T]he Court can conservatively estimate that Procup has himself filed in excess of 300 lawsuits within the past few years. Furthermore, that total does not include the cases in which plaintiff has acted as a 'law clerk' for various other inmates."). For an examination of the abuse of "writ-writing" for other inmates, see infra notes 179-82 and accompany­ ing text. FALL 1984] Career Plaintiffs 95 nal system. 11 Green's repeated violation of this injunction led to several extensions of his sentence.6 The sanctions imposed upon these three men are representa­ tive of the widely varied judicial responses to abusive, pro se7 "career plaintiffs"8 in the federal courts.9 The significant num- 5. Green v. Wyrick, 428 F. Supp. 732, 743-44 (W.D. Mo. 1976). 6. United States v. Green, 630 F.2d 566 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 904 (1980); In re Green, 586 F.2d 1247 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 922 (1979). 7. The scope of this Note is limited to pro se plaintiffs because they present a more difficult problem than plaintiffs who are represented by counsel. See infra notes 247-54 and accompanying text. 8. The language of several cases has suggested the term "career plaintiff." See, e.g., In re Martin-Trigona, 573 F. Supp. 1245, 1253, 1264 (D. Conn. 1983), a/I'd in part, va­ cated in part, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1984); Green v. Arnold, 512 F. Supp. 650, 651 (W.D. Tex. 1981); Hotel Martha Washington Mgmt. Co. v. Swinick, 67 Misc. 2d 390, 407, 324 N.Y.S.2d 687, 704 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1971). As used in this Note, the label refers to litigants who have pursued a "profession" of engaging in abusive litigation practices. This Note responds primarily to the repeated filing of frivolous complaints against different parties and/or based on different issues, such that traditional principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel are not sufficient to bar subsequent complaints. "Abu­ siveness" also entails other offensive litigation tactics, though. For examples of abusive practices employed by such plaintiffs, see infra notes 64-77 and accompanying text. For the difficulty of defining "abusive," see infra notes 78-80 and accompanying text. The label "career plaintiff" clearly does not apply to parties who have been engaged by choice or necessity in prolonged litigation for legitimate or good faith reasons. The term "career plaintiff" suggests problems greater than those posed by the single frivolous complaint. Frivolous suits brought under the In Forma Pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (1982) [hereinafter cited as § 1915] may be dismissed one at a time pursu­ ant to § 1915(d). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide a means of dismissing other single frivolous suits. See FED. R. C1v. P. 56. Summary dismissal of a single com­ plaint, however, is an unsatisfactory method of curtailing the abuses of career plaintiffs because it does not adequately protect the rights of defendants or other litigants. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate litigants who are limited by realities of time and expense and who have a basic respect for the system. Even a defendant who ultimately can obtain summary judgment must still suffer anxiety and the expense of retaining counsel. See Franklin v. Oregon, 563 F. Supp. 1310, 1325 (D. Or. 1983); Jones v. Bales, 58 F.R.D. 453, 463 (N.D. Ga. 1972), aff'd per curiam, 480 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1973). But see Note, Prevailing Defendant Fee Awards in Civil Rights Litigation: A Growing Threat to Private Enforcement, 60 WASH. U.L.Q. 75, 108 (1982) (claiming that Federal Rules are effective). Furthermore, courts reviewing individual complaints by a career plaintiff do not have the benefit of insight into abuses uncovered by other courts. This allows such filers to clog court dockets in many different jurisdictions with additional complaints and petitions. Review of such complaints on a case-by-case basis is unjustifi­ ably time-consuming and costly, and it is unlikely to stop the commencement of vexa­ tious litigation in many courts at the same time. See In re Martin-Trigona, 573 F. Supp. at 1255 n.27 (noting ineffectiveness of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(0, which al­ lows a court to "order stricken from any pleading any ... immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter"). 9. Empirical evidence demonstrates the significant problem facing the federal courts. Although state judges apparently face a similar problem, the lack of data on the state courts makes the scope of the problem unclear. Inmates using federal statutes are associ­ ated with the most significant abuses. Prisoners bring the great majority of pro se civil rights cases, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982). See Zeigler & Hermann, The Invisible Litigant: An Inside View of Pro Se Actions in the Federal Courts, 47 N.Y.U. L. REV. 96 Journal of Law Reform [VOL.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Spite and Extortion: a Jurisdictional Principle of Abuse of Property Right Abstract
    KATZ.DOCX 4/16/2013 6:49:41 PM Larissa katz Spite and Extortion: A Jurisdictional Principle of Abuse of Property Right abstract. This Essay puts forward the conceptual and normative underpinnings of a principle of abuse of property right. Owners abuse their right, I argue, when their decisions about a thing are designed just to produce harm. This is so whether that harm is an end in itself (spite) or a means to achieving some ulterior and possibly even valuable end (extortion). Theorists have tried to explain those limits concerned with spite in terms of maximizing utility or enforcing virtue. But these theories posit significant external limits on owners’ freedom and still do not explain those limits concerned with extortion. I argue that ownership’s political foundations account for its internal limits. Ownership confers the authority to answer what I call the Basic Question—what constitutes a worthwhile use of a thing. This authority is required to overcome twin problems of standing and coordination in a state of nature. We all have an interest in coordinating our uses of things (to avoid waste and conflict), but each of us faces a moral duty to forbear from imposing his answer to the Basic Question on others. A system of private property overcomes this dilemma, but its political foundations also give rise to constraints of legitimacy. Owners are charged with making decisions about things, but this authority does not extend to using a resource to gratify spite or gain leverage for some further end. These are not answers to the Basic Question, but rather efforts to use the position of ownership just in order to dominate others.
    [Show full text]
  • How Ambiguity in Some States' Anti-SLAPP
    ROBERT T. SHERWIN, AMBIGUITY IN ANTI-SLAPP LAW AND FRIVOLOUS LIGITATION, 40 COLUM. J.L. & ARTS 431 (2017) Evidence? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Evidence!: How Ambiguity in Some States’ Anti-SLAPP Laws Threatens to De- Fang a Popular and Powerful Weapon Against Frivolous Litigation Robert T. Sherwin* ABSTRACT For nearly thirty years, states have been adopting laws that attempt to stop rich, sophisticated parties from using costly litigation as a weapon to punish and silence their less-affluent critics. Known as “anti-SLAPP” statutes, these measures have been incredibly effective in forcing certain plaintiffs to bring forth evidence at an early stage of litigation to show their claims have merit. Unfortunately, a troubling trend has emerged. Some states’ courts are interpreting particular language within their anti-SLAPP laws to allow plaintiffs to survive early dismissal by merely pointing to unproven and unsworn-to allegations in their pleadings. This movement is on the rise as Congress recently considered a federal anti-SLAPP bill that just so happens to feature this same ambiguous language. This Article explores how state courts are arriving at entirely opposite holdings despite sharing statutory language that is identical in form and purpose. Ultimately, I offer specific suggestions about how Congress and state legislatures can fix their laws to avoid uncertainty and fully effectuate the purpose of anti-SLAPP legislation. Abstract ................................................................................................................. 431 I. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 432 II. Upside the Head: How Anti-SLAPP Statutes Seek to Disrupt Frivolous Litigation ................................................................................................... 435 A. When Do Anti-SLAPP Statutes Apply? ............................................ 437 B. How Do Courts Decide What Lives and What Dies? .......................
    [Show full text]
  • Was Australia's First Declared Vexatious Litigant. an Inventor, Entrepre
    Inventor, Entrepreneur, Rascal, Crank or Querulent?: Australia’s Vexatious Litigant Sanction 75 Years On Grant Lester Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, Australia Simon Smith Monash University, Australia upert Frederick Millane (1887–1969) was Australia’s first declared vexatious litigant. An inventor, entrepre- neur, land developer, transport pioneer and self-taught litigator, his extraordinary flood of unsuccessful litiga- Rtion in the 1920s led Victoria to introduce the vexatious litigant sanction now available to most Australian superior courts. Once declared, a vexatious litigant cannot issue further legal proceedings without the leave of the court. Standing to seek the order is usually restricted to an Attorney-General. It is used as a sanction of ‘last resort’. But who was Millane and what prompted his declaration in 1930? What does psychiatry have to say about the persistent complainant and vexatious litigant? How often is the sanction used anyway? What is its utility and the nature of the emerging legislative changes? Now, on the 75th anniversary of Millane’s declaration, this article examines these issues. The Making of a Vexatious Litigant such litigants without the court’s prior leave.1 It The Early Years provided the model for similar provisions in most superior court jurisdictions in Australia. In 1930, Rupert Frederick Millane, inventor, entrepreneur, Millane became the first person in Australia land developer, transport pioneer and self-taught declared a vexatious litigant. litigator was, by any measure, an extraordinary Born in 1887, in the Melbourne suburb of man. A gentle soul, he could spot the ‘big idea’, Hawthorn, Millane was the fourth of five children would promote it determinedly, but could not of Patrick and Annie Millane.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Supreme Court Update
    Texas Supreme Court Update Opinions Issued March 17, 2017 By Stephen Gibson1 (c) 2017 Defamation: Defamatory Effect Is Determined by a Publication’s “Gist” as Understood by an Objectively Reasonable Person; “Gist” May Not Be Decided Solely From Crowd-Sourced Resources. D Magazine Partners, L. P. v. Rosenthal involved a publisher’s motion to dismiss a defamation suit pursuant to the Texas Citizen’s Participation Act (TCPA). Rosenthal sued D Magazine for an article referring to her as a “welfare queen.” The article pointed out that Rosenthal received benefits under the state Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program while living in one of Dallas’s most affluent areas. Rosenthal maintained that the gravamen of the article was that she had engaged in welfare fraud. An earlier investigation by the Texas Health & Human Resources Commission found no wrongdoing, however. Under the TCPA, defendants may move to dismiss as unmeritorious suits “based on, relate[d] to, or … in response to a party’s exercise of the right of free speech.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code. § 27.003(a). According to Justice Lehrmann’s opinion, the TCPA’s dismissal provisions are designed to balance protecting a defendant’s free speech rights from vexatious litigation against preventing defamation of the plaintiff’s by constitutionally unprotected speech.2 To avoid dismissal, the plaintiff must present clear and convincing evidence of a prima facie case for each element of the claim subject to the TCPA. Even if the plaintiff meets this burden, the defendant may nevertheless obtain dismissal proving each element of a valid defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Inhibiting Patent Trolling: a New Approach for Applying Rule 11 Eric Rogers Molecular Templates, Inc
    Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Volume 12 | Issue 4 Article 2 2014 Inhibiting Patent Trolling: A New Approach for Applying Rule 11 Eric Rogers Molecular Templates, Inc. Young Jeon e-Litecom Co., Ltd. Recommended Citation Eric Rogers and Young Jeon, Inhibiting Patent Trolling: A New Approach for Applying Rule 11, 12 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 291 (2014). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/vol12/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property by an authorized editor of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. NORTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Inhibiting Patent Trolling: A New Approach for Applying Rule 11 Eric Rogers & Young Jeon November 2014 VOL. 12, NO. 4 © 2014 by Northwestern University School of Law Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Copyright 2014 by Northwestern University School of Law Volume 12, Number 4 (November 2014) Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Inhibiting Patent Trolling: A New Approach for Applying Rule 11 By Eric Rogers & Young Jeon* There has been an alarming rise in the number of litigious entities—commonly referred to as patent trolls or non-practicing entities—that make no products but file dubious patent infringement lawsuits merely to extract money from commercially productive companies. High litigation costs provide a fertile environment for an exploitive business model that uses shotgun tactics to threaten patent infringement claims against numerous companies, many of which will make a purely financial decision to pay patent trolls rather than expend even more money in litigation.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court
    Case 1:11-cv-00394-LJO-GSA Document 37 Filed 05/29/14 Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS GOOLSBY, 1:11-cv-00394-LJO-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANT 13 vs. STEADMAN‟S MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT 14 FERNANDO GONZALES, et al., AND REQUIRE PAYMENT OF SECURITY BE DENIED, AND PLAINTIFF‟S MOTION 15 Defendants. FOR STAY AND TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY BE DENIED 16 (Docs. 31, 36.) 17 OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 18 19 20 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Thomas Goolsby (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 23 pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the 24 Complaint commencing this action on March 8, 2011. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on 25 26 27 28 1 Case 1:11-cv-00394-LJO-GSA Document 37 Filed 05/29/14 Page 2 of 6 1 Plaintiff‟s First Amended Complaint, filed on September 17, 2012, against defendant T. 2 Steadman (“Defendant”) for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.1 (Doc. 13.) 3 On April 17, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and 4 require payment of security. (Doc. 31.) On May 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for stay and 5 to conduct discovery, or in the alternative, a sixty-day extension of time. (Doc. 36.) 6 II. MOTION TO DECLARE PLAINTIFF A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT AND 7 REQUIRE PAYMENT OF SECURITY 8 A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Crime of Barratry: Criminal Responsibility for a Branch of Professional Responsibility
    Digital Commons at St. Mary's University Faculty Articles School of Law Faculty Scholarship 1990 The Crime of Barratry: Criminal Responsibility for a Branch of Professional Responsibility Gerald S. Reamey St. Mary's University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/facarticles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Gerald S. Reamey, The Crime of Barratry: Criminal Responsibility for a Branch of Professional Responsibility, 53 Tᴇx. B.J. 1011 (1990). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LAWYER ADVERTISING ~ Ill· • ttl~;~ -· :­-~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ntil recently, when lawyers thought of spurious litigation or solicitation of clients by members of the legal profession, they thought only of attorney \ .... .... disciplinary rules and possible sanctions by a \ .... \ .... grievance committee, or perhaps a tort action for \ .... \ ........ malicious prosecution. And, of course, such conduct by a ' .... lawyer or her agent is prohibited by Rules 3.01, 7.02 and 7.03 ' .... of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. 1 ' ...... .... ' ' ...... Such misconduct is not, however, merely a breach of ........ .... professional etiquette or a violation of disciplinary rules. It is .... also a crime.2 ........ .... The History of Barratry in Texas ........ .... Despite the fact that no one seems to know of a case in which a lawyer has been convicted of the offense of barratry,3 Texas law established the crime as early as 1876.
    [Show full text]
  • Framing Frivolous Litigation: a Psychological Theory Chris Guthrie
    Vanderbilt University Law School Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2000 Framing Frivolous Litigation: A Psychological Theory Chris Guthrie Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications Part of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons Recommended Citation Chris Guthrie, Framing Frivolous Litigation: A Psychological Theory, 67 University of Chicago Law Review. 163 (2000) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/814 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,1 2 1/,1( Citation: 67 U. Chi. L. Rev. 163 2000 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Wed Jun 6 16:03:04 2012 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: https://www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do? &operation=go&searchType=0 &lastSearch=simple&all=on&titleOrStdNo=0041-9494 Retrieved from DiscoverArchive, Vanderbilt University’s Institutional Repository This work was originally published in Guthrie, C. Framing Frivolous Litigation: A Psychological Theory. 67 U. Chi. L. Rev. 163 2000 Framing Frivolous Litigation: A Psychological Theory Chris Guthriet This Article uses an often-overlooked component of prospect theory to develop a positive theory offrivolous or low-probability litigation.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Iowa
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 15–1661 Filed June 30, 2016 KELLI JO GRIFFIN, Appellant, vs. PAUL PATE, In His Official Capacities as the Secretary of State of Iowa, and DENISE FRAISE, In Her Official Capacities as the County Auditor of Lee County, Iowa, Appellees. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Arthur E. Gamble, Judge. Claimant appeals district court ruling holding her drug conviction fell within the scope of “infamous crime” as used in article II, section 5 of the Iowa Constitution. AFFIRMED. Rita Bettis of ACLU of Iowa Foundation, Des Moines, and Julie A. Ebenstein and Dale E. Ho of ACLU Foundation, Inc., New York, New York, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Jeffrey S. Thompson, Solicitor General, Meghan L. Gavin, Assistant Attorney General, and Michael Short, Lee County Attorney, for appellee. Gary D. Dickey of Dickey & Campbell Law Firm, PLC, Des Moines, for amicus curiae Polk County Auditor Jamie Fitzgerald. 2 Coty R. Montag, Washington, D.C., John B. Whiston of Clinical Law Programs, University of Iowa, Iowa City, until withdrawal, and then John S. Allen of Clinical Law Programs, University of Iowa, Iowa City, and Christina A. Swarns, Angel S. Harris, and Joshua A. Rosenthal, New York, New York, for amicus curiae The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. Alan R. Ostergren, Muscatine County Attorney, for amicus curiae Iowa County Attorneys Association. Mark McCormick of Belin McCormick, P.C., Des Moines, Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, New York, and Myrna Pérez of Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, New York, New York, for amicus curiae The Iowa League of Women Voters.
    [Show full text]
  • Third Party Litigation Funding: Plaintiff Identity and Other Vexing Issues
    Third Party Litigation Funding: Plaintiff Identity and Other Vexing Issues Introduction Third party litigation funding arises in both private arrangements and in public (statutory) models of subsidization or support. Third party litigation funding, whether private or public, may give rise to complicated issues such as the identity of the “real” litigant, as well as the consequences of costs awards when the status of the nominal litigant as the “real” party may be in doubt. When the source of funding is public, policy issues may arise about the appropriate scope of the funding. This paper will examine Canadian cases illustrating how courts determine the validity of private third party litigation funding and the issue of who is the “real” party to litigation when such funding arrangements exist. The traditional common law and policy reasons against private third party litigation funding will be assessed, and contrasted with the most significant justification for such funding: promoting access to justice. This paper will also compare private third party litigation funding with statutory funding available in subrogated or vested rights (such as personal injury litigation undertaken by workers’ compensation boards with respect to injured claimants) and statutory funding available from provincial class proceeding funds, government legal aid plans, and workers’ compensation free advisory/advocacy services. Some of the advantages and problems in both private funding and public funding schemes will be assessed, with a look at the factors that influence decision-makers in reaching conclusions about the identity of parties to litigation, as well as what types of costs may be awarded and who bears (or should bear) the obligation for payment of those costs.1 Private litigation funding by third parties as a business transaction 1 In situations where a private third party is funding either legal fees and/or litigation disbursements, the third party funder’s identity as the “real” litigant may be an issue when maintenance and champerty are raised as defenses in the litigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Vexatious Litigator Declaration
    • -- '· CERTIFIED COPY COURT COMMON PLEAS BROWN COUNTY, OHIO CLER~~CL%l~RAY DEPUTY:f5.tlJ}1.~ 0 C/-,R 5-~o, B IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BROWN COUNTY, OHIO ZACHARY A. CORBIN CASE NO. 2017-0570 BROWN COUNTY PROSECUTOR (JUDGE SCOTT T. GUSWEILER) Plaintiff, (MAGISTRATE W. KENNETH ZUK) vs. MAGISTRATE'S DECISION RICHARD CURTIS Defendant. This cause came on for hearing on July 18, 2018 before the Court's Civil Magistrate. The Plaintiff, Zachary A. Corbin, Brown County Prosecutor, was present through and represented by Mary McMullen, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney. The Defendant, Richard Curtis, was personally present, having been returned to Brown County, Ohio for purposes of attending the hearing. The Defendant is being held at the Marion Correctional Institution where he is serving a life sentence for an aggravated murder conviction in Case No. 2009-CR-2041. The Defendant appeared Pro Se. Vexatious litigator litigation is governed by Ohio Revised Code Section 2323.52, which provides as follows: 2323.52 Civil action to declare person vexatious litigator. (A) As used in this section: (1) "Conduct" has the same meaning as In section 2323.51 of the Revised Code. (2) "Vexatious conduct11 means conduct of a party in a civil action that satisfies any of the following: (a) The conduct obviously serves merely to harass or maliciously injure another party to the civil action. -- ' - (b) The conduct is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. (c) The conduct is imposed solely for delay.
    [Show full text]
  • Third-Party Funding of American Litigation
    REVOLUTION IN PROGRESS: THIRD-PARTY FUNDING OF AMERICAN LITIGATION Jason Lyon* There is a growing phenomenon of for-profit investment in U.S. litigation. In a modern twist on the contingency fee, third-party lenders finance all or part of a plaintiff’s legal fees in exchange for a share of any judgment or settlement in the plaintiff’s favor. There are a number of international corporations, both public and private, that invest exclusively in this new “market.” Critics contend that third-party litigation finance violates the common law doctrines of “maintenance,” or interference in a legal proceeding by a stranger to the suit, and “champerty,” or maintenance for profit. Critics also raise numerous arguments based on the purported negative consequences of a widespread system of third-party finance. These include serious ethical considerations, the possibility of compromising attorney-client privilege, and an alleged tendency to encourage frivolous lawsuits while discouraging settlement. This Comment argues that these critiques are flawed and that third-party litigation finance should be permitted but regulated to guard against its fairly limited dangers. I argue, first, that the common law doctrines of maintenance and champerty are inconsistent with our contemporary view of litigation. Over the past century, Americans have come to see lawsuits as a valid means of settling personal disputes, vindicating individual rights, and correcting social ills. Moreover, the procedural reforms of the early twentieth century were designed to liberalize rather than limit access to the courts. I conclude that third-party litigation finance is in keeping with our current values because it facilitates the filing of claims that might otherwise go unheard.
    [Show full text]