The Due Process Clause guarantees not merely the right to file pleadings, but the right to a meaningful hearing before deprivation. The Equal Protection Clause forbids systems that are neutral in theory but discriminatory in effect. When judicial discretion operates to disadvantage one class of litigants, those without counsel, it ceases to be neutral and becomes structural….

THE CASE STUDY ANALYSIS PROVES RHODE ISLAND HAS A TWO-TIER JUSTICE SYSTEM

Analysis of the RI Supreme Court decision in this Case Study is evidence that decisions on appeal by Self-represented litigants are twisted like a pretzel to favor the represented parties no matter what the facts and the laws are in the case. 

 A Summary of RI Supreme Court decision from Justia states:

“The Supreme Court held that the trial justice properly reinstated the Stipulated Agreement of Dismissal, noting that the agreement was binding and could not be set aside without the consent of all parties.”

FACTS OF THE CASE FROM THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTORARI:

Without objection from Respondents, the Dismissal Agreement was rescinded and the case returned to the trial calendar. During the hearing, a Trial date certain and a Pre-trial conference date were consented to by all parties. Pretrial orders were issued. (App-100a) Litigation resumed. Respondents filed multiple motions in limine, jury instructions, a witness list, two dispositive motions, a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion to Dismiss Two Counts of Petitioner’s Abuse of Process claim against the Individual Respondents to which Petitioner filed objections. All parties attended the Pre-trial conference on April 21, 2023.

TRUTH: The actions taken by the Defendants clearly demonstrate that indeed there was consent from all parties to the recission of the dismissal agreement, contrary to the RI Supreme Court’s unconstitutional decision. Recission was the correct method to withdraw the dismissal agreement, and the Court granted recission, based on the evidence the Court acknowledged and granted recission.  In fact, the Defendants have never even uttered the word recission.  They proceeded to comply with the Pre-trial Order,  thus consenting to recission.

Justia Summary states:

“The court found no evidence of duress or other factors that would justify vacating the agreement. “

TRUTH; It was well established that the Dismissal Agreement proffered by Plaintiff was done under duress. Documentation was hand delivered to the judge in real time as the medical excusals came in by fax and multiple hearings had been reset and continued as a result. Continuances are only given for good cause shown and it was provided with Petitioner’s Appeal Briefs. However, the RI Supreme Court’s decision states that there is nothing on the record regarding this issue.  This is a falsle statement on the part of the RI Supreme Court that favors the Defendants.

Justia Summary further states:

“The Supreme Court also upheld the trial justice’s decision to treat the defendants’ motions as motions to reconsider, given the lack of proper notice to the defendants at the initial hearing.”

TRUTH: A Motion to Reconsider is a Rule 60 Motion to Vacate, and only applies to final judgments, not to unilateral stipulations obtained through duress without benefit of counsel and absent payment. There wasn’t a Rule 60 motion before the Court.  Rescission of the Dismissal Agreement was appropriate, and the reinstatement of it was improper and unconstitutional.  Evidence the Defendants had 6 weeks notice of Plaintiff’s intention to rescind the dismissal agreement asserted in her February 8 filing, was ignored by RI Supreme Court.  Stating a lack of proper notice to defendants of the initial hearing is another false statement that favors the Defendants.  It was Plaintiff who received NO PRIOR NOTICE the court would  recharacterize the Defendants motions. In Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003) “The  US Supreme Court recognized that “pro se litigants face unique risks of forfeiting fundamental rights when courts recharacterize filings without adequate safeguards,” as was done in this case.”

FACTS OF THE CASE FROM THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTORARI:

March 24, 2023, based upon evidence of duress (a fact the trial justice was very familiar with from multiple medical excusals sent directly to her throughout the litigation from Petitioner’s doctors and from the ER at Butler and Kent hospital)1 and fraud, evidence contained in her February 8, 2023, pleading, the Court granted recission of the Dismissal Agreement. This evidence was before the Court, and the Court admitted she had reviewed and understood it. (App-107a)

The Lower Court’s statements are part of the record and are set forth with transcript pages in Petitioner’s appeal brief. The Court announced to Petitioner: “Now you will have your day in court,” and reiterated this two more times during the hearing. (App-108a)

In Rhode island, The Self-represented litigant doesn’t stand a chance of prevailing against represented parties, as decisions are based on status not merit.  A  Two-tiered justice system that is rigged with a Rule that allows a judge to decide against a Self-represented litigant 100% of the time without accountability.

The judge Sua sponte recharacterized Defendants’ filings as Rule 60 motions, granted relief never requested, reinstated a rescinded dismissal agreement, without supporting rules or law, without prior notice or hearing and mooted legitimate dispositive motions, turning Respondents motions into dispositive motions by judicial fiat. 

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.

By affirming the decision in our Case Study, RI Supreme Court did more than leave error uncorrected; it continued a tradition under which “no accommodations for SRLs” operates as a safe-harbor to disregard SRL record-supported arguments, converting neutrality into advocacy for represented parties; a two-tiered justice system in Rhode Island.