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.

Comments

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I understand there's a "plain language" movement in the law (and elsewhere).

https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34877/chapter-abstract/298342571?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false

[Life of Brian]

It's not clear from the abstract how far that initiative is going (e.g., if it's trying to eliminate all legal jargon whatsoever, which is tough). But for as long as I've been practicing there's (thankfully) been an increasing number of people striving for the intermediate step of writing plainly and clearly with appeal to as little legal jargon, esoteric Latin phrases, and other inside baseball as possible.

Some are resistant, and in my experience they tend to be people who either don't know how to write plainly and clearly, or hide behind jargon because their argument would not present well if written plainly and clearly. But the field as a whole has made a lot of progress -- both lawyers and judges. I see these sorts of summaries as another welcome step in that direction.

[SRG]

FWIW The Theft Act 1968 was IIRC the first attempt by the UK intentionally to draft plain English legislation. The result was a jump in arguments and appeals because it turned out that plain English wasn’t precise enough – was a horse or a bicycle a vehicle? for example.

[Childhood reader of SCOTUS opinions, really]

No, you mistake cause and result. People see no coherence or argument from principles in modern Scotus decisions. In Colonial America virtually everybody read , understood , and debated everything from British bills to proposed constitutions — and Scotus rulings until around the era of Dred Scott.

Chief offenders are Kagan, Ketanji Jackson, Sotomayor, Roberts. What they say and argue strikes the common citizen as bunk.

How serious can you be about the law when you say: “We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators.”

[SRG]

Once you listed who you think are SC offenders, it’s clear that you’re somewhat lacking in objectivity. KJB has written only one opinion, so it is far too early to conclude anything. For example, Gorsuch’s early opinions were afflicted with informal English but I wouldn’t judge him on that basis.

[DWB]

Considering KJB would not define a woman ... you know and I know how she will rule in almost every case

[SRG]

However, your original claim was not over her failure to define a woman but over her SCOTUS decisions - and I don't know how you can call her a chief offender on the strength of a single decision. But thanks for that fine example of prejudice.

[David Nieporent]

In Colonial America virtually everybody read , understood , and debated everything from British bills to proposed constitutions — and Scotus rulings until around the era of Dred Scott.

This is a fact you made up.

What they say and argue strikes the common citizen as bunk.

This is also a fact you made up.

[DWB]

As a non-lawyer - I kinda like this

[Rossami]

This shouldn't be an added summary for pro se litigants - this should be the normal practice for everyone.