HAS THE SUPERIOR COURT OF BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NC ESTABLISHED A SYSTEM OF INJUSTICE THAT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST PRO SE LITIGANTS IN A MANNER THAT VIOLATES THE SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION?

The primary purpose of this article is to enhance the awareness of pro se litigants, i.e., that the Superior Court of Brunswick County, North Carolina may have established a system of injustice that discriminates against pro... [ view full abstract ]

The primary purpose of this article is to enhance the awareness of pro se litigants, i.e., that the Superior Court of Brunswick County, North Carolina may have established a system of injustice that discriminates against pro se litigants in a manner that violates the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In this regard, the instant article has significant public interest not only for pro se litigants, but also for any person associated with the legal community, including legal scholars.

 Specifically, this article argues that the procedural posture of the case study reveals that the Superior Court of Brunswick County, North Carolina (NC) has established a system of injustice that discriminates against pro se litigants in a manner that violates the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. More specifically, through an analysis of the procedural posture of the case study, this article finds a system of injustice established by the Superior Court of Brunswick County, NC that is applied to a pro se plaintiff, as follows.

First, a Brunswick County, NC superior court (trial court) judge, unlawfully dismisses the case of a pro se plaintiff against two defendants under N.C.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Second, when the pro se plaintiff attempts to have the order of dismissal reviewed by the N.C. Court of Appeals (by filing a first notice of appeal), before the appeal is docketed in the N.C. Court of Appeals, the same trial court judge (a) unlawfully dismisses this first appeal and (b) contemporaneously issues said plaintiff a Gatekeeper Order, sua sponte, without “Notice” and an “Opportunity to be Heard.” The issuance of the Gatekeeper Order in this manner by said trial court judge purposefully (1) deprives the plaintiff of Substantive Due Process, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and (2) has the effect of preventing or obstructing the appeal of both (a) the order of dismissal and (b) the sua sponte Gatekeeper Order itself.

With respect to the plaintiff’s appeal of the unlawful order of dismissal, after said appeal has been dismissed within the system of injustice established by the Superior Court of Brunswick County, NC, the pro se plaintiff is foreclosed forever from perfecting his statutory right of appeal.

“There is no inherent or inalienable right of appeal from an inferior court to a superior court or from a superior court to the [appellate division].” In re Halifax Paper Co., 259 N.C. 589, 592, 131 S.E.2d 441, 444 (1963).  

“Our own Supreme Court has . . . held that the right to appeal in this state is purely statutory.” State v. Joseph, 92 N.C. App. 203, 204, 374 S.E.2d 132, 133 (1988), cert. denied, 324 N.C. 115, 377 S.E.2d 241 (1989).  

Among the statutes expressly providing for an appeal of right is N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27 (appeals of right from courts of the trial divisions). Appeals lie from the superior court to the appellate court as  a matter of right rather than as a matter of grace. Harrell v. Harrell, 253 N.C. 758, 117 S.E.2d 728 (1961).

Of course, the pro se plaintiff may otherwise file a petition for certiorari with the NC Court of Appeals, but said plaintiff has been completely and irrevocably deprived of his statutory right to appeal the trial court’s unlawful order of dismissal, thereby depriving the plaintiff of Substantive Due Process (“Access to Court”), as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Third, in response, the pro se plaintiff attempts to have the Gatekeeper Order reviewed by the N.C. Court of Appeals (by filing a second notice of appeal). However, with respect to the pro se plaintiff’s appeal of said Gatekeeper Order within the system of injustice established by the Superior Court of Brunswick County, NC, the plaintiff’s appeal of the Gatekeeper Order is obstructed to the extent that the pro se plaintiff is required to file CERTIFIED documents with the trial court (pursuant to the Gatekeeper Order) in perfecting his appeal, unless the plaintiff receives a temporary stay of said Gatekeeper Order.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the pro se plaintiff may be able to appeal the trial court’s sua sponte Gatekeeper Order. However, before the plaintiff’s appeal is docketed in the N.C. Court of Appeals, within the system of injustice established by the Superior Court of Brunswick County, NC, the same trial court judge unlawfully orders the dismissal of the plaintiff’s appeal of the trial court’s sua sponte Gatekeeper Order, thereby forever depriving the pro se plaintiff from perfecting his statutory right to appeal said Gatekeeper Order. In the case study, the trial court judge may even refuse to allow the pro se plaintiff an “Opportunity to be Heard” on the matter, thereby depriving the pro se plaintiff of Substantive Due Process, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Of course, the pro se plaintiff may otherwise file a petition for certiorari with the NC court of Appeals, but within this system of injustice established by the Superior Court of Brunswick County, NC, said plaintiff has been completely and irrevocably deprived of his statutory right of appeal, thereby depriving the pro se plaintiff of Substantive Due Process (“Access to Court”), in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

There is one final aspect to this system of injustice established by the Superior Court of Brunswick County, NC that is of public interest. In particular, in the case study, the superior court judge delegated to defendants’ counsel the responsibility to prepare the orders (sometimes in advance) to be signed and entered by the superior court judge. In the case study, these orders included findings of fact and conclusions of law that were either (a) never adjudicated by said superior court judge or (b) inconsistent with prior orders. Here again, the pro se plaintiff has been deprived of Substantive Due Process, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In a case study approach, the three primary objectives of this article are:

(1)   To establish the procedural posture of the case study;

(2)   To establish the law at issue; and

(3)   To apply the law at issue to the procedural posture of the case study for the purpose of identifying U.S. constitutional implications for the pro se plaintiff.

This article argues that if these objectives are met, the procedural posture of the case study reveals that the Superior Court of Brunswick County, NC has established a system of injustice that discriminates against pro se litigants in a manner that violates the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In this regard, the instant article has significant public interest not only for pro se litigants, but also for any person associated with the legal community, including legal scholars.

In a case study approach, this article accomplishes its primary purpose and objectives in a stepwise fashion as follows.

- In Part I, the procedural posture of the case study is established.

- In Part II, the law at issue is identified.

- In Part III, the law at issue is applied to procedural posture of the case study actual for the purpose of identifying U.S. constitutional implications for the pro se plaintiff.

- In Part IV, implications of the findings in Part III for pro se litigants, persons associated with the legal community, including legal scholars, are presented.