"At Times, Filings by Pro Se Litigants and Attorneys Alike Are Wholly Nonsensical, but Pointing That Out" Doesn't Justify Recusal

Words of wisdom from Judge Jennifer Dorsey (D. Nev.) last week in Naessens v. Breslin:

[The self-represented plaintiff] takes issue with an order of mine in an unrelated case calling a pro se plaintiff's filings "wholly nonsensical" and argues that such language "suggests an undue predisposition against unrepresented parties."

Naessens … fails to show that I treated him or his allegations unfairly because of his pro se status. At times, filings by pro se litigants and attorneys alike are wholly nonsensical, but pointing that out does not supply a legal basis for recusal….

Comments

[Roger S]

The judge says that filings by attorneys can be wholly nonsensical, but he gives no example of ever pointing it out. It appears he only points it out against unrepresented parties. Looks like bias to me.

[neurodoc]

The judge is obliged to point to examples of nonsensical filings by attorneys to prove that they do happen so he won't seem biased?!

[Roger S]

No, not to prove that they happen. To prove that the judge criticizes bad work by attorneys.

The complaint is that the judge only criticizes pro se parties. His response is that there are attorneys who are also deserving of criticism. But unless he actually criticizes those attorneys, he is just proving his own bias.

[David Nieporent]

Looks like Roger S is all in on the trans agenda.

[loki13]

In fairness, some pro se complaints are so insane, they circle right back around to being brilliant.

I am reminded of Ward v. Arm & Hammer, wherein a pro se litigant (a prisoner) sued a manufacturer of baking soda under a failure to warn theory. Specifically, that the company failed to warn purchasers of its products that combining it with cocaine to product crack would result in increased prison sentences.

It's one of those claims that is both stupid and brilliant. It failed, but it will live on in my memory.

[Supremacy Claus]

Sorry, but how is blaming the maker of baking soda for a longer prison sentence, any stupider than 90% of tort claims? In most cases, the plaintiff was 100% to blame for their injury. Despite the theater production nature of the quack trial, despite the totally biased judges allowing bogus cases to proceed, juries favor the defendant 80% of the time. Lawyers drove out manufaturing. Lawyers destroyed shipbuilding. Lawyers destroyed most small businesses, that could not survive a lawsuit.

A direct action movement is morally justified against the rigged legal system. The lawyer profession is the enemy of our nation. It makes 99% of government decisions, no matter who the elected figurehead is.