Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 122 S.Ct. 992, 534 U.S. 506, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (U.S.
Over the years I have watched the federal courts abandon their duty to protect citizens
against judicial abuse by the states. Seems that as they study ways and means to dispose
of our cases, our actual time in court grows shorter and shorter. Example: Summary
judgment required subjecting defendants to discovery. That was replaced by the use of the
12(b) motion to dismiss. That took too long and subjected defendants to too many questions
about the propriety of their actions. With that, came use of the abstention theories, albeit
improperly applied in most cases, resulting in dismissals prior to discovery. But that wasn't
good enough. The latest m.o. is sua-sponte dismissal, depriving us of our right to an adversary
system of justice. The judge does the dirty work, protecting the defendants completely from
exposure! Sua-sponte dismissal by a district-court judge is authorized by Congress only in
prisoner cases! That didn't stop my perp from using it against me, a nonprisoner, fee-paid
civil litigant. The Second Circuit ignored all my arguments, as did the district perp.
Swierkiewicz is a good case, but it's just window dressing. The Supremes won't even
enforce it themselves. Knowing this, the lower courts have license to "getcha"!
Last year, I received "JUSTICE BY CLERK": My petition for certiorari was dismissed. I do not
for a minute believe that any of the Supremes actually saw my papers! Roberts was questioned
about the practice of the "cert pool." This was not what the Framers envisioned.
Here are the questions which the Supremes DO NOT WANT TO ADDRESS:
Duboys v. Bomba
Whether the use of "inherent authority" or "power" of a district court judge to sua-sponte
dismiss an unrepresented Sec. 1983 claimant's action at the pleading stage, thus preventing
and avoiding an adversarial proceeding with pretrial proceedings available to other litigants,
is constitutionally repugnant and a violation of 1st (access), 5th (due process/equal rights),
7th (jury trial) Amendment guarantees, as encompassed in the 14th Amendment?
Whether clearly disparate treatment of lawyered and nonlawyered cases by a Circuit court or
judge, such as failure to apply Supreme Court and Circuit precedent uniformly, e.g., de novo
and abuse-of-discretion reviews applied in lawyered cases but not in nonlawyered cases, is a
deprivation of the constitutional guarantee of due process of law and equal protection of the laws?
Whether this Court, in its supervisory capacity, will enforce its own orders on certiorari to
a Circuit which fails to obey its clarification of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and requirement
for an adversarial disposition of an action on the merits, as opposed to dismissal at the pleading
NB: As part of their "clean out the courts" m.o., district judges were demanding heightened
pleadings, contrary to FRCVP 8's requirement for simplicity and brevity.
Swierkiewicz was on certiorari to the Second Circuit. It perked upstairs because the Circuit
failed to obey an earlier Supreme Court cert to the 5th Circ., saying pretty much the same thing:
Leatherman v. Tarrant, 507 U.S. 163 (1993). Text attached.
Leatherman was a "clarification" of federal rules, which all courts are required to obey.
I cited Leatherman and Swierkiewicz to the Second Circuit, which they simply ignored. The
litigation was a sick joke!
As a result of the failure of the federal system to keep bad state-court judges in
line, those perps feel they have a total license to violate.
Ten-plus years ago, a friend who had already been to the Supremes said: "Legislate; don't
litigate!" I argued for litigation, thinking I understood the process. Little did I know
then about the farce called "justice." Following a corrupt guardianship/probate experience,
I spent those 10-plus years in every level of state and federal court, wanting to prove to
my friend that he was wrong. Well, that wasn't the only reason. I wanted justice!
Dick - you were right!
So the apparent answer is that we must all turn our attention to the Congress, for it is
actually they who are responsible for all our legal problems. They do have, but won't use,
the power to keep the courts in control. And if we don't, woe unto ye - not the lawyers -
but we, the pepole!