We recently asked for your views on Ward v. Arm & Hammer, the civil action brought by a pro se prisoner against a leading baking soda manufacturer. If you don’t remember what the case was about, here’s the caption:
The District Court didn’t think highly of the case. And neither did you:
One additional interesting point, made by David Giacalone of Shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress:
“Thanks to Ted Frank’s coverage, I learned that 28 U.S.C. 1915, the federal law covering prisoners seeking to file a case as a poor person, does not prevent a legally frivolous suit from being appealed in forma pauperis, unless the district court judge certifies that the appeal is not being taken in good faith, or the prisoner has had three prior suits that failed to state a valid claim, or were found to be frivolous or malicious.”
So even if you thought Ward was “the most frivolous lawsuit ever,” it’s hard to fault Judge Chesler for permitting an in forma pauperis appeal to the Third Circuit, given the applicable law.
Pro Se Recycling Goes Over and Above [Shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress]
Because we all love wacky pro se suits: Ward v. Arm & Hammer [Overlawyered]
Earlier: Ward v. Arm & Hammer: What Do You Think?
The Fine Line Separating Pro Se Litigants, Plaintiffs’ Lawyers, and Law Professors