The case asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Rhode Island Supreme Court decision that, if left standing, entrenches a dual system of justice that disadvantages self‑represented litigants and permits courts to deprive individuals of fundamental rights without notice, motion, hearing, or legal authority.

The petitioner, a 73‑year‑old woman forced to proceed pro se after attorneys declined representation due to opposing counsel’s abusive tactics—litigated her civil claims alone, for six years. In December 2022, during a period of documented medical crisis, she filed a Rule 41(a)(1)(b) voluntary dismissal to protect her health. Two weeks later, the opposing parties filed a second dismissal that misrepresented the existence of “remaining claims.” Upon learning about this second fraudulent dismissal, the petitioner notified the court and the parties, six weeks in advance, of her intention to withdraw the dismissal, due to this fraud. At the March 24, 2023, hearing, the trial court acknowledged the evidence of fraud and duress and without objection, rescinded the dismissal agreement, restoring the case to the trial calendar. A pre-trial Order was issued and all parties resumed litigation, filing motions, attending pretrial conferences, and preparing for trial.

Three months later, at a June 20, 2023 hearing scheduled for dispositive motions, the trial judge abruptly read a pre‑written decision from the bench. Without a motion to reconsider, before the court, without prior notice, giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, the court Sua sponte recharacterized the respondents’ filings as motions for reconsideration and “reinstated” the previously rescinded dismissal. The court invoked “plenary authority” based on a supposed lack of ten‑day’s notice to withdraw the Dismissal, despite clear record evidence that the respondents had six weeks’ notice and had already waived any objection by consenting to trial dates and resuming litigation of the case. This ruling deprived the petitioner of her right to trial and ended the case by judicial fiat. This turn of events was a shocking surprise.  Opposing counsels walked away having made tens of thousands of dollars and leaving Petitioner without a trial on the merits and no settlement. Petitioner appealed this unfair and unconstitutional outcome to the RI Supreme Court.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, misstating key facts, overlooking the record, and avoiding the central constitutional issues. It relied on defendants’ arguments raised for the first time on appeal, selectively applied its Raise‑or‑Waive doctrine to benefit represented parties, and mischaracterized the dismissal as a “consent order” despite the absence of judicial oversight or consideration when it was filed. It declined to address the misuse of Rule 60(b), despite the trial court’s reliance on it, and applied no recognized standard of review. Critical facts, including the docket number proving the second dismissal was fraudulent, were omitted from the opinion.  

The Petition to the US Supreme Court argues that these actions violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, contravene U.S. Supreme Court precedent prohibiting courts from acting as advocates or deciding un-litigated issues, and represent a serious departure from accepted judicial procedure. The case raises urgent national questions about systemic bias against self‑represented litigants, the misuse of judicial authority, and the erosion of procedural safeguards essential to the rule of law.

The Petition cited the doctrinal framework necessary to evaluate whether RI Supreme Court’s decision comports with constitutional protections of due process and equal protection, as US Supreme Court has defined it. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) is the governing balancing test for all procedural due process questions, both administrative and civil. Incorporating Mathews into the analysis is essential to the proper resolution of the question presented. It’s precisely the tool needed to evaluate the systemic disadvantages faced by self-represented litigants in state courts across the country, ensuring due process protections are not contingent upon the ability to afford counsel.  The RI Supreme Court decision was silent on Mathews.  

Instead of applying Mathews RI Supreme Court:

1)Mischaracterized the Dismissal Agreement as a Consent Order despite being filed without a court order under Rule 41(a)(1)(b), 2) Accused Petitioner of failing to comply with procedural rules while disregarding facts shown revealing rules were complied with 3) Omitted the docket number in the Dismissal, changing the legal significance of the second Dismissal 4) Abandoned the Raise or Waive doctrine, allowing new inapplicable caselaw, excluding the parts of the law that make it inapplicable.  5)Disregarded documented duress 6) Didn’t apply a standard of review. 7)Denied Request for Judicial Notice of false assertions 8)Disregarded Petitioner’s appeal briefs asserting her constitutional rights. 9)Denied sanctions and mediation 10)Denied Motion to Reargue.

Every single action and omission by the RI Supreme Court was to the advantage of opposing parties, both represented by counsel. A decision based on status not merit. Clearly a Two-tiered justice system