Pro Se Appellant Dismissed For Rule Violations; Wynn Disagrees
Today a panel majority in Ord v. IBM dismissed an appeal for rule violations. The majority: Calabria and Tyson. The violations noted by the majority: "[P]laintiff assigns error to numerous findings and conclusions, but fails to argue specific findings and conclusions. She also fails to cite any authority in support of her arguments. In addition, plaintiff has failed to reference the assignments of error pertinent to each question presented, and has failed to identify the page numbers in the record where such assignments appear. Finally, plaintiff failed to include a statement of grounds for appellate review in her brief ...." The majority concluded there was no "manifest injustice" to justify suspending the rules per Rule 2.
Judge Wynn disagreed that dismissal was appropriate. He concurred, however, because he agreed the appeal failed on its merits. He added that addressing the merits was important because it would've "afforded her a day in court."
Judge Wynn disagreed that dismissal was appropriate. He concurred, however, because he agreed the appeal failed on its merits. He added that addressing the merits was important because it would've "afforded her a day in court."
2 Comments:
Dismissals of appeals and tightening of the Rules are an increasing concern in the legal community. With respect to this particular case, my sympathy goes out to the pro se appellant, and my respect for Judge Wynn's dissent.
(1) Since Judge Wynn was able to review the pro se appeal, Rule 2 should have applied. The errors were not sufficient to encumber appellate review on the merits by Judge Wynn, even if only to concur.
(2) It is known by those who are in a position to know and are disgruntled by it, that briefs by pro se appellants generally are disregarded, because "they cannot be relied upon to comprehend the law". At least Judge Wynn admirably reviewed this appeal.
I remain at a loss to comprehend why the NC Appeals Court is the only level of the judiciary that is immune from upholding the pro se protections of Haines v. Kerner, Platsky v. US and Conley. Their position not only disinfranchises pro se litigants at the appealette level, but also imboldens Superior Court Judges to rule against pro se on the basis of racial and pro se bias, knowing they will not likely be overturned on appeal.
Post a Comment
<< Home