Does the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Deliberately Mess up in Pro Se Prisoner Cases?

This is the order I just got from the Third Circuit court of appeals clerk. (pdf)

3d Cir. L.A.R. 40.1(a) states:

(a) A petition seeking rehearing must be filed electronically as provided in L.A.R. Misc. 113. Paper copies need not be filed unless directed by the clerk. Petitions must include as an exhibit a copy of the panel’s judgment, order, and opinion, if any, as to which rehearing is sought.

The rule says nothing about filing for leave to submit attachments. In fact, the rule requires the submission of at least one attachment, an exhibit a copy of the panel’s judgment, meaning that if it were necessary to file for leave to submit attachments, it would also be necessary to do so in every request for Panel Rehearing.

And this isn’t the first time the clerk/court has seemingly made a mistake. The Motion for Reconsideration referred to as GRANTED in that order was filed also because the clerk messed up on this same issue (a fact she, to her credit, seems to have acknowledged by GRANTING the motion and amending her order).

The District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania almost never makes these kind of mistakes. But the goal of the Third Circuit seems to be to dispose of pro se cases by any means necessary, even if doing so means issuing rulings that are objectively wrong or even nonsensical.

1 comment

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *