Courts

Judge Posner Loses Appeal In Laughably Lazy Fourth Circuit Opinion

The Fourth Circuit completes a trifecta of appellate cowardice.

By  
on

Judge Richard Posner (screenshot via Public Affairs TV / YouTube)

Judge Posner and Matthew Dowd didn’t offer a particularly thorny argument when they filed their appellate brief on behalf of pro se litigant William Bond. Bond sought leave to amend his complaint to meet the district court’s pleading requirements but hit a brick wall instead, with the district court tossing his argument without offering the barest explanation as to why.

The Posner brief, at its heart, argued that all litigants deserve a clear explanation from the judge why they lose and that this obligation is supercharged in the case of a pro se litigant untrained in legal minutiae. That seems like the bare minimum one could ask for from a court.

Thr Fourth Circuit, who have jerked Posner around this whole case, could have shot down the argument by carefully stringing together a defense of a trial court who did offer a coherent explanation of its decision when taken holistically, even if one wasn’t apparent in the published opinion.

Instead, they denied Posner oral argument and coughed up a cursory opinion claiming courts have no obligation to explain themselves to anyone:

Bond argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his second motion to amend without providing a relevant justification for doing so. After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we reject this contention as without merit. “As long as a district court’s reasons for denying leave to amend are apparent, its failure to articulate those reasons does not amount to an abuse of discretion.”

In the very next sentence, the panel notes that “The August 1 order does not explicitly state whether Bond’s second motion to amend was being denied for prejudice, bad faith, or futility,” but still manages to conclude that such a slipshod opinion could pass muster as “apparent” based on the record… without ever identifying anything specific in the record to back that up.

Sponsored

Delivering a conclusion straight out of Kafka, the Fourth Circuit concludes its “the record is clear here and no we won’t tell you why” opinion with this:

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

Denying a legal giant oral argument to avoid getting clowned before ruling against him was a gutless move out of the gate, but the Fourth Circuit completes its trifecta of appellate cowardice by handing down its opinion both per curiam and unpublished. How difficult would it have been to ask the district court to go back and write a coherent opinion?

Apparently more difficult than admitting the system can’t stomach pro se litigants.

(Full opinion on the next page…)

Sponsored

Earlier: Judge Posner Chastises District Court’s ‘Laziness’… And He’s Got A Point
Judge Posner Files First Brief Since Leaving The Bench, Lights Into Federal Judiciary
Judge Posner Taking On Pro Se Case After Fourth Circuit Did Something Incredibly Stupid

HeadshotJoe Patrice is an editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.

1 2Next »

Topics

, , , ,