News

Harvard Medical School Cancels Student Groups’ Pro-Palestine Vigil

News

Former FTC Chair Lina Khan Urges Democrats to Rethink Federal Agency Function at IOP Forum

News

Cyanobacteria Advisory Expected To Lift Before Head of the Charles Regatta

News

After QuOffice’s Closure, Its Staff Are No Longer Confidential Resources for Students Reporting Sexual Misconduct

News

Harvard Still On Track To Reach Fossil Fuel-Neutral Status by 2026, Sustainability Report Finds

Frivolous Suits Not Always So

TO THE EDITORS

NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED

By supporting limiting frivolous lawsuits by inmates, the Massachusetts Attorney General advocates legalizing discrimination based upon wealth ("Harshberger Releases `Top 10 Frivolous Suits,'" wire story, Jun. 27, 1995). The legal system as now constituted discriminates well enough.

If the Department of Corrections were given the power now held by the Judiciary to eliminate suits that have no factual or legal basis to support them, any hope of prisoners gaining relief through the courts would die. Many suits are filed simply because prison guards have denied inmates access to the courts in the first place.

If the Attorney General thinks that Pro se indigent inmate lawsuits get the same treatment as a suit by a prominent wealthy citizen he believes that Elvis lives.

Judges regularly throw out legitimate claims by indigent pro se litigants on the basis of frivolity. Many prison guards do not know what the word means. If the courts cannot handle their burden let them work 40 hours per week, or stay open 24 hours until they catch up as hospitals do Denying citizens the right to be heard, a First Amendment right because prison guards do not consider them important is a denial of due process based upon wealth discrimination and status prohibited by the law of the U.S. Supreme Court. Roy Bercaw   Cambridge, MA

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags