Motion for attachments granted?

Just an update to:

https://trentontompkins.com/does-the-court-of-appeals-for-the-third-circuit-deliberately-mess-up-in-pro-se-prisoner-cases/

The court just entered this order:

In response to this motion:

So, my request for leave to file attachments was granted, even though I don’t know what legal basis there was to need to request leave.

I’m expecting a denial, without explanation. That’s because there isn’t a legal basis for what the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals did in my first case, just a practical one. It’s faster to grant summary affirmation than read a brief. If anything, screwing up actually helps the court, because once prisoners understand that what they submit won’t even be fairly looked at, fewer prisoners will even bother to file anything at all.

It is the best of all worlds for the court. They don’t have to write bad precedent into the law, they can just not follow the law in practice (unless of course the party appealing has money, and a lawyer, in which case summary affirmation “screening” doesn’t even happen). There are literally 2, codified systems of justice; one for lawyers, and a broken one that prisoners can try to use. But the broken one is now so broken, the other party doesn’t even have to reply, and appealing prisoners don’t even get to file a brief. The Third Circuit just rubber stamps the District Court’s decision and collects its $600, without even going through the motions.

I get it, people are lazy, but this is one of the highest Federal courts in the land. Maybe the judges could go on fiverr and find and find a guy who’ll read briefs and write judicial opinions for them? At least it’d be something. And rubber-stamping an outsourcer’s work would be no worse than rubber-stamping a magistrate judge’s opinion.

Here is the full Petition for Panel Rehearing, which I doubt the court will read:

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.