Opinion ID: 2599136
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Superior Court Granted Kaiser the Leniency Appropriate to a Pro Se Litigant.

Text: In cases involving pro se litigants, courts relax some procedural requirements. We have defined duties for both judges and the pro se litigants in such cases. The litigant is expected to make a good faith attempt to comply with judicial procedures [4] and to acquire general familiarity with and attempt to comply with the rules of procedure [5] absent this effort, he or she may be denied the leniency otherwise afforded pro se litigants. [6] Courts hold the pleadings of pro se litigants to less stringent standards than those of lawyers, particularly where lack of familiarity with the rules rather than gross neglect or lack of good faith underlies litigants' errors. [7] Judges should inform a pro se litigant of the proper procedure for the action he or she is obviously attempting to accomplish, [8] and inform pro se litigants of specific defects in their pleadings. [9]
In Breck v. Ulmer , where a pro se litigant had lost on summary judgment, this court held that she should have been advised of the necessity of submitting affidavits to preclude summary judgment. [10] In this case, the trial court advised Kaiser quite clearly that if he did not submit an expert affidavit to challenge the affidavit submitted by defendants, Kaiser would lose on summary judgment. The trial judge warned Kaiser that the defendants were going to move for summary judgment. Once the defendants made this motion, the trial judge explained, your opposition is going to be ... due pretty soon.... You're now getting notice, today on April 20th, that it's coming, and so I want you to go out and start making that effort so you do have that expert lined up by the time [the defendants make] that motion.... If you're unable to locate an expert who's going to back up your theory of liability, then [the defendants] are entitled to a summary judgment. Judge Sanders further reiterated, what you need ... is ... countervailing expert testimony, and you're going to need to have an expert that's going to [support your position]. The trial court's warning to Kaiser regarding the need for an expert affidavit could not have been clearer. To the extent that Kaiser now challenges the adequacy of the trial court's guidance on this issue, his challenge fails.
Kaiser also argues that the superior court misled him as to the significance of the expert medical panel. The trial judge summarized the usual advisory role of the panel for Kaiser, told him that a plaintiff in his position might typically waive appointment of a panel if the defendant agreed to do so, and told him that appointing a panel would slow down the proceedings. Kaiser complains that the trial court did not warn him of the possibility that, if Kaiser were ultimately unable to find an independent expert to support his claims, the panel might still provide expert opinion in his favor and save him from summary judgment. The superior court did not err in failing to warn Kaiser of such a speculative eventuality. Advising litigants of every possible outcome of every decision is beyond the scope of the court's obligations to the pro se litigant. We have explained that [t]o require a judge to instruct a pro se litigant as to each step in litigating a claim would compromise the court's impartiality in deciding the case by forcing the judge to act as an advocate for one side; [11] the same concern weighs against requiring a court to advise parties of potential long-term strategic implications of waiving a malpractice advisory panel.
Without discovery of his own medical records from defendants, Kaiser had little chance of obtaining an expert affidavit stating that defendants' treatment fell below the standard of care. Had Kaiser, as a pro se litigant, made a good faith effort to obtain discovery and informed the court of his difficulties, he might have been entitled to greater guidance from the court regarding the mechanics of the discovery process. However, there is no indication in the record that Kaiser ever requested copies of his medical records through discovery or otherwise. [12] And in the eight months between April, when the trial court put [Kaiser] on notice that the defendants would prevail on summary judgment unless Kaiser obtained an expert affidavit, and January, when the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, Kaiser never squarely raised the issue of his discovery difficulties before the court. We therefore conclude that the court's assistance to Kaiser was sufficient on the matter of discovery. [13]