Pro se plaintiff gets jury trial verdict for $550,000 for illegal search and malicious prosecution thereafter. The jury was free to conclude that the basis for the search was invented. Coleman v. Sperry, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52527 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 12, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cNelson’s second ground for relief is a blanket statement that his constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments were violated. Nelson fails to explain how. Nelson states the following: \u2018Mr. Nelson’s conviction and sentence are violative of his right to freedom of speech and to petition, his right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, his right to due process of law, his right to counsel, to confrontation of witness, to present a defense, and to compulsory process, and his right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment under the constitution.\u2019 Doc. 1. Nelson states conclusions unsupported by a single fact.\u201d Defaulted, too. Nelson v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52371 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 13, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a \u00a7 1983 case, the warrant wasn\u2019t in the pleadings until the reply. \u201cDefendants’ attachment of the warrant to the reply does not transform the motion into one for summary judgment, nor does it create unfair surprise. [\u00b6] In any event, even when material outside of the pleadings is submitted, the appropriate course is not to strike the filing, but for the Court to determine whether to consider the material in resolving the motion. The Court is fully capable of disregarding any argument or exhibit that exceeds the permissible scope of Rule 12(c) review. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the inclusion of the exhibit has prejudiced their ability to respond to the dispositive motions.\u201d Simmons v. City of Hurricane, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52472 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 13, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Pro se plaintiff gets jury trial verdict for $550,000 for illegal search and malicious prosecution thereafter. The jury was free to conclude that the basis for the search was invented. Coleman v. Sperry, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52527 (W.D. Wis. … Continue reading