Law Commons^™

No Sword, No Shield, No Problem: Ai In Pro Se Section 1983 Suits, Michaela Calhoun

University of Colorado Law Review Forum

Originating during the Reconstruction era, 42 U.S.C. 1983 emerged as a legislative tool to safeguard individuals’ constitutional rights and liberties. Initially designed to combat state-sanctioned violence, its efficacy has been eroded over time by subsequent judicial and legislative action. Unfortunately, the current state of Section 1983 falls short of this envisioned role, particularly for incarcerated individuals who find themselves navigating the complexities of the federal court system as pro se litigants.

Faced with a landscape devoid of resources, incarcerated individuals struggle to realize their constitutional rights, further perpetuating their collective status as a second-class citizenry—a status imposed by their own …

Civil Procedure And The New Bar Exam, Jeffrey A. Parness

University of Colorado Law Review Forum

No abstract provided.

The Visible Trial: Judicial Assessment As Adjudication, Tracey E. George, Albert H. Yoon

University of Colorado Law Review

Only a small fraction of lawsuits ends in trial—a phenomenon termed the “vanishing trial.” Critics of the declining trial rate see a remote, increasingly regressive judicial system. Defenders see a system that allows parties to resolve disputes independently. Analyzing criminal and civil filings in federal district court for the forty-year period from 1980 to 2019, we confirm a steady decline in the absolute and relative number of trials. We find, however, this emphasis on trial rate obscures courts’ vital role and ignores parties’ goals. Judges adjudicate disputes directly by ruling or effectively through other assessments of the parties’ cases. Even …

Self-Intervention, Lumen N. Mulligan

University of Colorado Law Review

You cannot intervene in your own case, duh! Yet the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) allows state legislative leaders, seeking to represent the state's sovereign interest, to intervene when the attorney general is already representing the state's sovereign interest. In this Article, I contend that the text, history, and practice of Rule 24(a)(2) prohibit such "self-intervention." I then explore how the fictive approach to state immunity established in Ex parte Young causes this confusion, while concluding that the doctrine, properly understood, focuses on real, not nominal, parties in interest. I further conclude that …

Producing Procedural Inequality Through The Empirical Turn, Danya Shocair Reda

University of Colorado Law Review

Procedural rulemaking and scholarship have taken an empirical turn in the past three decades. This empirical turn reflects a surprising consensus in what is otherwise a highly divided field and an inherently adversarial system. Because procedural rules distribute legal power in society, they invariably raise questions about who should have access to courts, information, and the means to defend one's legal rights. While debate rages about these normative commitments, procedure has developed a surprising epistemic agreement on empiricism, with its promise of rising above these competing interests with data. In procedure, the turn toward empiricism has become a strategy for …