Two Colorado Federal Judges Start Providing Summaries of Opinions for Pro Se Litigants

Colorado Politics (Michael Karlik) reports:

A second federal judge in Colorado appears to have adopted the practice of summarizing her decisions in plain English for people who represent themselves before the court.

U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney, a 2022 appointee of President Joe Biden, recently issued multiple written orders in cases where the plaintiffs are "pro se," meaning without an attorney.

In a departure from usual protocols, Sweeney added a separate section explaining what she was doing using non-legal language….

Colorado Politics previously reported on the adoption of pro se summaries by another member of the federal bench, U.S. Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell….

A sample, from Washington v. Bennion:

You started this lawsuit in December 2021. By April 2022, you had filed your third amended complaint. Three Defendants who you named in this lawsuit—Nathan Bennion, Ashley Albury, and Jodi Landfair—filed a motion to dismiss your third amended complaint in July 2022. The United States Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court should grant their motion to dismiss your claims. However, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing your claims without prejudice, meaning that the Court should dismiss your claims without permanently closing your claims.

The Court adopted that recommendation. When the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, it gave you an opportunity to file a fourth amended complaint. However, the Court said that if you did not file your fourth amended complaint that the Court would dismiss your claims against Nathan Bennion, Ashley Albury, and Jodi Landfair with prejudice, meaning that it would permanently close your claims against them in this lawsuit.

By January 2023, you had not filed your fourth amended complaint. So the Court asked you to explain to the Court why it should not dismiss your claims against Nathan Bennion, Ashley Albury, and Jodi Landfair. It also asked you to explain why you had not served Cathy McCoy, or other unnamed Defendants that you wanted to sue, in order to make them appear in your lawsuit. The Court said that if you did not explain why you had not served these Defendants that it would also dismiss your claims against them with prejudice, meaning that it would permanently close your claims against them in this lawsuit.

Today is February 17, 2023. You have not responded to the Court's January 26, 2023, Order. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES your claims WITH PREJUDICE. The Court explains why it is dismissing them with prejudice further below. It also discusses the legal authority that supports its conclusion.

Not sure just how much this approach on balance adds, but it struck me as worth noting.