BARKER v. PLATTSMIER III LLC (2020)

Writ application denied.

I agree with the decision to deny this writ application. I write separately to note that while Courts do, at times, apply “less stringent standards” to pro se litigants, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), they will still be held responsible “for their lack of knowledge of the law.” Food Perfect, Inc. v. United Fire & Cas. Co., 12-2492 (La. 1/18/13), 106 So. 3d 107, 108. Additionally, while the plaintiff's actions in this case apparently do not rise to the level of harassing or vexatious litigation, I note that pro se status offers “no impenetrable shield, for one acting pro se has no license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded court dockets.” Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358 (5th Cir. 1986) (Politz, J.). See also Bankston v. Alexandria Neurosurgical Clinic, 94-693 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/7/94), 659 So. 2d 507, 511 (same) (collecting cases).¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   Barker was the plaintiff in an earlier civil application in Barker v. Judge Karen Herman, in which he sought to have the Orleans Parish Civil District Court order the Criminal District Court to provide adequate funding for indigent criminal defense. This Court ultimately granted defendants’ writ application and held the Civil District Court lacked jurisdiction over the case. Barker v. Herman, 2018-1725 (La. 4/22/19), 267 So.3d 585.

Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.