Timothy Doyle Young is the poster child for vexatious litigation. Don't take Suits & Sentences' word for it; just ask the judges who are on the receiving end of his lawsuits.
Young is a 51-year-old inmate at the federal Supermax facility in Colorado. The convicted armed robber has got time on his hands in that harsh and unforgiving environment, with his current sentence set to run until 2024. In the U.S. Court of Federal Claims last March, he sued seeking $25 million in damages for an assortment of allegations.
But that's only the tip of the iceberg. In a July 31 decision tossing Young's case, the vexed federal claims court Judge Marian Blank Horn noted that Young has filed more than 60 similar federal lawsuits in various jurisdictions throughout the country. "Mr. Young," Judge Horn stated, "has made himself an example of the type of plaintiff Congress was trying to address when it passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act."
Sealing the argument with an effective rhetorical technique, the claim court lists some of Young's filings. Notice the cumulative effect; this parade of facts can really drive the point home and explain why the judge then took the extraordinary measure to screen out future filings by Young. States the judge:
"Even since the filing of the current case on March 23, 2009, plaintiff has filed twelve separate additional claims: (1) on March 31, 2009, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois; (2) on May 22, 2009, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado; (3) on June 2, 2009, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado; (4) on June 22, 2009, in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado; (5) on July 2, 2009, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; (6) on July 6, 2009, in the United States Supreme Court; (7), (8), (9), three cases filed on July 22, 2009, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; (10) on July 24, 2009 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; (11) on July 28, 2009 in the Northern District of California; and (12) on July 29, 2009, in the United States District for the District of Colorado."
Hmm, kind of like that woman handling the case for the soldier who doesn't want to go to Afghanistan because he doesn't believe Obama is really his commander in chief.
Posted by: borisjimbo | August 06, 2009 at 08:41 PM
The decision stated includes on page 2 “8) that Mr. Young has been retaliated against for exercising his right to access the courts and to file grievances by being subjected to improper “shakedowns,” loss of privileges and the filing of improper prison incident reports”.
In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (U.S. 05/18/2009), the U.S. Supreme Court wrote "This Court assumes, without deciding, that Iqbal's First Amendment claim is actionable in a Bivens action ... " The S.C. discussed pleading standards and concluded that there should be a remand for amendment alleging more evidentiary details in order to overcome a claim of qualified immunity.
Posted by: kay sieverding | February 08, 2010 at 03:47 PM
It really irritates me the way that prisoner litigation is conducted. The ECF units have some $146 million in unspent funds. The ECF programmers can easily develop a fill in the blank prisoner complaint form that will prompt entry of evidence of any and all claims of unconstitutional acts against prisoners.
I read that prisoner lawsuits are under litigated because prisoners and ex prisoners are so exhausted and humiliated. I was a prisoner of the US government for 5 months without even being accused of committing a federal offense. No government attorney appeared and I was not arraigned. There was no bail hearing and no criminal information was supplied. I was not even accused of making noises or smells or threats or even rudeness in the presence of the court. (I don't have a criminal record at all.)
I am from a conservative middle class background and was never sympathetic to prisoners at all until I became one.
It doesn't save the government any money to hold prisoners who aren't guilty nor to deprive them of medical care nor to subject them to bullying. These actions have huge indirect costs to society and to taxpayers.
Posted by: kay sieverding | February 08, 2010 at 04:00 PM