Parental Advisory: The following lyrics contain explicit language. Viewer discretion is advised.

This song takes a look at United States ex rel.¹ Gerald Mayo v. Satan and his Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1971), which is a staple of many 1L civil procedure classes in law school. For more content like this, check out my JustMisterESQ YouTube page, and don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe.

Lyrics

Sue me, sue I, sue you! Even blood gang gotta holla
Suwu!
Sounding litigious, I ain’t kidding, ya dig it my friend it’s kind of a given–no a right in this system
That everybody is getting equal access to justice through a court of law!²
At least that’s ostensibly how they spin it! If ya, rich or indigent, white or black or magenta, my kin the
Court’s open to ya, you’re invited to enter
Whenever ya rights have been injured!

And idealistically that’d breed
Just good, but yo, unfortunately, we’ll see my creed
That there’s both light and dark in all things that be
in action in the WD!
That means the Western district, just to get specific,
Here in Pennsylvania, that’s the Federal system!
Back in 71! And Judge Weber’s sitting!
The case in question, well my friend, just listen!

Ayyo! Gerald Mayo, filed a complaint! No lawyer!
We call that pro se, bro!
Against a defendant who sure ain’t no saint, no!
The defendant, is Satan…and his staff!

“No way!!! You on that fictional tip like in Biggie Bird — Mister, quit it!
Tryna cap up my head, but best believe ain’t fitting”!

Well peep the description, if you don’t believe it, I’m giving the citation to read it!
Yes indeed!
Guess it’s the double edge of freedom, when ya open up the courts to the people!
To keep it all equal, that’s what’s needed! And when things are working at it’s Zenith, then it leads to Decisions like Clarence Gideon’s, a case that was rendered in 63!³ Where the Supreme Court held that poor defendants in a criminal case have the right to a Lawyer, per the Sixth Amendment.
But then it opens things for some man who sued because drinking beer won’t get him no women.⁴
And that’s the yang and yin of it! This case is unusual, but hey it’s interesting, and a law school favorite!

Ok, in this here instance, Mayo’s pissed, blaming Satan and all his minions for making Mayo feel misery,
Deliberately against his will, stripping him of his constitutionally given
Civil rights, and causing unwarranted apprehension.
He filed in Western District, although no address was given for Satan our dear defendant.
That last point’s significant, but we’ll get to it!

Right now what’s at issue here is if this dude named Mayo can litigate this for free!
Cuz if he succeeds in showing poverty conditions, well then, In Forma Pauperis⁵ lets him file with no fee!
The phrase is Latin for “in the character of a pauper.”
And when you lack of funds then the merits of your argument
Rarely is the Judge’s basis to shut down that application!
Especially when that case has been brought by a pro se plaintiff.
Remember, for this one equal treatment’s the theme, and for the court to block access, then ya case is extreme!⁶

And yeah, this dude sued Satan, so you know it’s extreme!
And so the judge’s answer was,
What do you think?!

DENIED!!!!!!!!

This ain’t no claim that the court could grant,
MAN!
Meaning if things in the complaint that Mayo filed were the Honest Truth, well
then there’s no remedy that Weber could use to
Give our plaintiff redress!

Now peep this!
Clever was Judge Weber when he said to Mayo, “Gee whiz! Yeah you’re poor, but eat shit”!
As he nixed Mayo application because Satan…well who knows where he lives?!

Is there jurisdiction in this district? Sure as shit it’s a mystery,
Someone tell me now, is HELL located where we’re sitting?
Because no address was given!
Can we handle the suit?!

Weber dropped a clever reference here, he tried to get cute.
With his allusion to “the Devil and Dan Webster”⁷ a story which said
The Devil does have standing in American courts to sue! As Weber, questioned whether that evidence precludes,
Discussion bout the residence of Satan and Crew!

He joked about class action afterwards because actually if you think about it many folks would have,
The same complaint as Mayo against Satan, too many to include.

And finally, he noted Mayo’d broken a rule!
He failed to give directions to serve Satan the suit, which were required on a form to make sure process was due.⁸
We got make sure Satan is aware of the suit! That much is true!
Aren’t you amused?!

And thus we conclude with Weber’s ruling,
For the reasons foregoing, In Forma Pauperis is refused!
Which meant that to file suit, then payment was due by the presumably indigent Gerald Mayo!

True, this suit was silly, but cute, and its opinion is used, by law schools,
Cuz it smoothly, touches various rules. Some get very confused, and might say it’s abuse
Of resources to bring this to the court–what can you do? When the right to sue is fundamental! That’s per the first amendment!⁹
Well the most protection is due, in my opinion!
Existing rules act as appropriate limits! And so cases like this ain’t getting through,
Usually. You’ll see though Weber clearly had fun on this,
He caught it at the filing stage, it hadn’t begun as yet!
Here, the court procedure caught it easily like a net! For things more problematic, Rule 11 might cover that!¹⁰ And other claims of action to deter filing stuff that’s wack!¹¹
But I would be remiss if I ain’t spit on the “justice gap.” Between the rich and low income Americans, per the stats,
You see the latter had inadequate help in civil actions,
In 86 percent
Of cases in 2017, their represent
-ation was shaky!¹² Know what a mean?
I’ll say again!
That equal access is key and To place more limits,
Than what we have just might be
worse!
And may further diverge the existing gap
And the underserved may be hurt! In a word! If we balance
Interests then things like Mayo may only be a small price to pay, over the cost of raising walls the other way.
Ok?

References

1. Ex rel. is the abbreviation of a Latin phrase, which translates to, essentially, “on behalf of.” Here, the U.S. government has filed on behalf of the plaintiff because he is incarcerated.
2. For an in depth discussion on fundamental nature of the right to sue/access to the courts, see “Right To Sue” by Adam Newton, September 16, 2002″ https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-petition/right-to-sue/
3. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
4. Overton v. Anheuser-Busch Co., 205 Mich. App. 259 (1994)
5. See 28 U.S. Code § 1915
6. See Lockhart v. D’urso, 408 F. 2d 354, 355 (3rd Cir. App 1969); see also Lawson v. Prasse, 411 F. 2d 1203, 1204 (3rd Cir. App 1969), Sinwell v. Shapp, 536 F. 2d 15, 19 (3rd Cir. 1976), Deutsch v. US, 67 F. 3d 1080, FN 5 (3rd Cir. 1995).
7. See “Devil and Daniel Webster” by Stephen Vincent Benet. Also see “The Devil and Homer Simpson” from The Simpsons “Treehouse of Horror IV,” which parodies it.
8. See Fed. R. Civ P. 4(c)(3) and 4(l) regarding service by U.S. Marshal. For a sample U.S. Marshal Form USM-285 (for return of service and receipt), click here.
9. See, again, Newton, “Right To Sue,” referenced above.
10. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, regarding sanctions regarding, particularly, frivolous lawsuits.
11. See, for example, Pennsylvania’s Dragonetti Act. 42 Pa. C.S. 8351, et seq., regarding the wrongful use of civil proceedings.
12. Jay M. Feinman, “Five myths about lawsuits,” Washington Post Online, July 23, 2020. Cites Legal Services Corporation’s June 2017 report, “The Justice Gap: Measuring the Unmet Civil Legal Needs of Low Income Americans.”