Can a person sue over and over w/o repercussions

[Chimera]

Suing one person over and over would be considered harassment.

[Spoons]

@Mr.Excellent

Bit of a hijack, but do Canadian prisoners have a statutory obligation to exhaust administrative processes - that is, within the prison system - before they can litigate? That’s the rule for prisoners in the American system; they need to exhaust all administrative remedies available before they can enter federal court, thanks to our Prisoner Litigation Reform Act. Nasty bit of work, that.

Off the top of my head, I’m unsure if there is a statutory obligation. But in practice, it does work that way.

For matters where inmates have a problem with their treatment, they are generally encouraged to follow procedure for escalating the problem: first, they typically (and orally) ask to see the officer in charge. If a discussion with that officer doesn’t solve the problem, then they can, in writing, request an interview with somebody higher-up who may be able to do something about it (“Request for Interview” forms are readily available and easy to obtain from a variety of sources). If that doesn’t work to their satisfaction, then they can refer the problem to the provincial ombudsman (I represent clients in a provincial jail), who can investigate; and if necessary, take steps to rectify the problem. Few take things this far, however; as the problem is usually solved at an earlier step.

A fast bit of research tells me that after the ombudsman step, inmates can file a suit. I cannot comment further on the success or failure of these suits, as I have not yet read the court decisions.

I should point out that some inmate legal matters, however, have nothing at all to do with their treatment, and instead, deal with “outside” matters–for example, a divorce, or defending a tort lawsuit. In these cases, inmates can deal with the matter through the court system, without following the in-house administrative measures.

[Northern_Piper]

What Spoons said.

Would just add that prisoners in Canada also have the option of a human rights complaint, which can be used for allegations of racist treatment by guards, issues of religious accommodation and so on. If a complaint is filed, it gets investigated by the human rights commission. If they find probable cause and can’t reach a settlement, it goes to a hearing under human rights laws. ,

[Isilder]

@Kalman

My father once told me that a person can sue someone else over and over, even as the case keeps getting thrown out. He said this can b done without any repercussions, and thus can be used as a strategy to get someone to do what you want. Admittedly, you would need so much money and time that it’s too impractical too be done, but I’m still curious whether it true or not.
And If it is true, is it only in certain states, like, say, Pennsylvania.

There’s one common case where it is far from true (in practice while not actually written on paper):

a man cannot sue a woman, not even the first time !

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

What on earth are you talking about?

[AK84]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Whether or not res iudicata applies is a question of law. The court clerk is not qualified to determine whether or not it applies, and the court generally won’t dismiss an action on its own, so you have to file a motion for summary judgment (in some jurisdictions, it would be a motion to dismiss but in Florida an MTD may not refer to matters outside the four corners of the complaint, such as whether the case was previously dismissed.)

Actually, this varies in jurisdiction. In England under the old Rules of Supreme Court (although not sure if under the new Civil Procedure Rules) as well as in British India and Malaya and Hong Kong, Court officers could refuse to allow presentment of a plaint which they thought wqpas barred by res judicata and res subjudice although a party had the right ti ask them to place the matter before the court itself

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Interesting. Thanks for the correction.

How were they supposed to know about the previous litigation? Was it just a matter of remembering the names?

[Moriarty]

In Florida, there is a statute (57.105) which provides for one party to pay the other’s fees when they file a claim unsupported by facts or law. The statute provides a safe harbor (of 21 days) whereby the offending party can withdraw the claim before the other side can pursue its fees. A similar mechanism (rule 11, I believe) exists at the federal court level.

I have also seen appellate courts rule that a particularly irascible litigant is required to have a licensed attorney sign off on their pleadings. Since the courts have the inherent power to sanction (or ultimately disbar) a frivolous attorney, this should, in theory, limit the asinine pleadings.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Since 2002, Ohio law also has had a procedure for someone to be declared a vexatious litigator, and to require court approval before he or she files any more case(s): Section 2323.52 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws. It’s not often used, but it’s very useful to have when it’s needed.

[md2000]

This article, interesting slap-down rebuttal when a dentist, Dr. William Coppola, threatened to sue over a negative review…

Dentist Threatens Patient Who Left Yelp Criticism With Criminal Charges

Note the penalties mentioned for filing lawsuits where there is no real basis for the lawsuit in Texas: (Bold mine) Basically, threatening to sue over something which has absolutely zero basis to sue, and indeed is aprotected constitutional right, can be dangerous.

Dr. Coppola has no claim for business disparagement or defamation. Nor, despite what your artfully crafted language about conversations with the district attorney begged Jen B to infer, is there any basis to charge her with a crime. (Indeed, Texas repealed its criminal libel statute 50 years ago. Acts 1973, 63rd Legislature, Chapter 399, Section 3.) But letters from lawyers are scary things; had she not been able to hire me, Jen B might not have known that she faces no true consequences from Dr. Coppola’s threat other than a waste of her time. I trust that after you share this letter with Dr. Coppola, he will realize that, too.

Through his threat, and any possible follow-up he might pursue, however, Dr. Coppola has created some problems for himself. First,** the lawsuit he threatens would Violate the Texas Citizens Participation Act, our version of an anti-SLAPP law**. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 27. Jen B’s review is a communication; she made it as part of her exercise of her liberty of free speech; and it is about a matter of public concern, the dental services that Dr. Coppola and Northeast Children’s are furnishing in the marketplace. The theoretical lawsuit would, unquestionably, be based on Jen B’s posting of the review–her exercise of her freedom to speak. Jen B would get an expedited hearing and ruling on her request to dismiss Dr. Coppola’s theoretical lawsuit. And once that theoretical case is dismissed, Jen B would be entitled to recover her legal fees–which are, I assure you, despite the eye-popping effect they sometimes generate, reasonable.

Too, Dr. Coppola now knows that there is no legal basis for his threats. Any lawsuit he files could be only for harassment, to impose costs upon Jen B, or to punish her for exercising her liberties, all of which are improper bases. He would, that is, be using the lawsuit as a form of extortion–using it to achieve an ulterior end that a defamation claim isn’t meant to achieve. The same would go for any criminal case that Dr. Coppola might connive the district attorney into bringing. This would make Dr. Coppola liable for malicious prosecution, the damages for which would be whatever other legal fees Jen hadn’t recovered in getting Dr. Coppola’s claims dismissed. See James v. Brown, 637 S.W.2d 914, 918 (Tex. 1982) (elements); Digby v. Texas Bank, 943 S.W.2d 914, 925-26 (Tex. App. – El Paso 1997, writ denied).

Jen B, however, doesn’t have to wait for Dr. Coppola to do anything. **Dr. Coppola’s threats have brought into question Jen B’s rights and legal relations between her and Dr. Coppola, and Jen B is entitled to have the question of those rights and relations settled through a declaratory judgment. **Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 37. Because she’s entitled to such a declaration, she can seek it without waiting to see if Dr. Coppola acts on his threat. And because she’s entitled to that declaration on a claim that would entitle her to fees, she’ll also be entitled to recover the fees she incurs seeking that declaration.