I wrote about e-filing discrimination against pro se (civil rights) litigants in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, about a motion made by a pro se party in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York for a right of such e-filing, and about a decision made in another federal court actually explaining why pajama discrimination is good discrimination.
The "good pajama discrimination" happened in one of the U.S. District courts in Ohio where the court told an out-of-the-country litigant that (1) they have a rule by which pro se litigants must file on paper and by mail, while only those represented by counsel file electronically and that (2) the pro se litigant in question filed by mail before in the same lawsuit and such filing did not appear to deter him from filing, so he can just as well continue to file it the same way in the future.
After posting the blog about the "good pajama discrimination" in a federal court in Ohio, I found a case in the U.S. District Court in the District of Oregon where an e-filing application by a pro se litigant was granted - without a word of opposition or reproach.
Kudoz, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon - at least on the issue of e-filing, this court leads the country in non-discrimination against pro se litigants.
But, so far that I could find, only one federal court only that I have found so far sees absolutely no need to burden their own clerks with scanning and e-filing on behalf of pro se litigants when such pro se litigants are perfectly capable to do that themselves, while other courts prefer to create unnecessary work, give pro se litigants less time and make it more costly for them to litigate in federal court, while the others insist on discriminating against pro se litigants as their "discretionary right"?
So, do judges have discretionary rights to discriminate and make access to court more difficult to one class of litigants over others?
No comments:
Post a Comment