IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v18y2021i3p603-628.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ideology, Disadvantage, and Federal District Court Inmate Civil Rights Filings: The Troubling Effects of Pro Se Status

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Gunderson

Abstract

Nearly 80 percent of all federal judicial activity occurs in the district courts and a significant portion of that activity is the result of prisoners filing petitions against state and federal correctional representatives. We know relatively little about these lawsuits, however. This article focuses on inmate civil rights filings as a vital form of political action of those incarcerated and argues that ideology and disadvantage play a role in the ultimate outcome of these cases. I amass a large dataset of every prison condition or civil rights petition filed by an inmate from 1989 to 2016 and find that while ideology does not predict the likelihood an inmate lawsuit will succeed, that prisoners' pro se status, whether they file the petition without the aid of an attorney, makes it significantly more likely the suit will be dismissed and less likely that inmate will receive relief. This is suggestive evidence that pro se status, and not necessarily actual legal quality, may be driving outcomes in prisoners' rights cases. This article has implications not only for the study of judicial decision making in the federal district courts, but also as an example of important political action of a disenfranchised and neglected group in our legal system.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Gunderson, 2021. "Ideology, Disadvantage, and Federal District Court Inmate Civil Rights Filings: The Troubling Effects of Pro Se Status," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 603-628, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:18:y:2021:i:3:p:603-628
    DOI: 10.1111/jels.12290
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12290
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jels.12290?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anne Morrison Piehl & Margo Schlanger, 2004. "Determinants of Civil Rights Filings in Federal District Court by Jail and Prison Inmates," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 79-109, March.
    2. Joshua B. Fischman & Max M. Schanzenbach, 2011. "Do Standards of Review Matter? The Case of Federal Criminal Sentencing," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(2), pages 405-437.
    3. Richard T. Boylan & Naci Mocan, 2014. "Intended and Unintended Consequences of Prison Reform," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 558-586.
    4. Christina L. Boyd & Lee Epstein & Andrew D. Martin, 2010. "Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 389-411, April.
    5. Ashenfelter, Orley & Eisenberg, Theodore & Schwab, Stewart J, 1995. "Politics and the Judiciary: The Influence of Judicial Background on Case Outcomes," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(2), pages 257-281, June.
    6. Max Schanzenbach, 2005. "Racial and Sex Disparities in Prison Sentences: The Effect of District-Level Judicial Demographics," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 57-92, January.
    7. Richard T. Boylan & Naci H. Mocan, 2009. "Intended and Unintended Consequences of Prison Reform," NBER Working Papers 15535, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Christina L. Boyd & Pauline T. Kim & Margo Schlanger, 2020. "Mapping the Iceberg: The Impact of Data Sources on the Study of District Courts," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 466-492, September.
    9. Herbert M. Kritzer, 2008. "To Lawyer or Not to Lawyer: Is that the Question?," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(4), pages 875-906, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chen, Daniel L. & Levonyan, Vardges & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Policies Affect Preferences: Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence," IAST Working Papers 16-58, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    2. Shamena Anwar & Patrick Bayer & Randi Hjalmarsson, 2019. "Politics in the Courtroom: Political Ideology and Jury Decision Making," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(3), pages 834-875.
    3. Fałkowski, Jan & Lewkowicz, Jacek, 2021. "Are Adjudication Panels Strategically Selected? The Case of Constitutional Court in Poland," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    4. Matthew Dahl & Devan N. Patel & Matthew E. K. Hall, 2021. "The Dogma Within? Examining Religious Bias in Private Title VII Claims," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 742-764, December.
    5. Chen, Daniel L., 2018. "Judicial Analytics and the Great Transformation of American Law," TSE Working Papers 18-974, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    6. Chen, Daniel L. & Sethi, Jasmin, 2016. "Insiders, Outsiders, and Involuntary Unemployment: Sexual Harrassment Exacerbates Gender Inequality," IAST Working Papers 16-44, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    7. Joshua B. Fischman & Max M. Schanzenbach, 2011. "Do Standards of Review Matter? The Case of Federal Criminal Sentencing," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(2), pages 405-437.
    8. Chen, Daniel L., 2018. "Judicial Analytics and the Great Transformation of American Law," IAST Working Papers 18-87, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    9. Bourreau-Dubois, Cécile & Doriat-Duban, Myriam & Jeandidier, Bruno & Ray, Jean-Claude, 2020. "Does gender diversity in panels of judges matter? Evidence from French child support cases," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    10. Freyens, Benoit Pierre & Gong, Xiaodong, 2020. "Judicial arbitration of unfair dismissal cases: The role of peer effects," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    11. Chen, Daniel L. & Prescott, J.J., 2016. "Implicit Egoism in Sentencing Decisions: First Letter Name Effects with Randomly Assigned Defendants," IAST Working Papers 16-56, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    12. Chen, Daniel L., 2018. "Machine Learning and the Rule of Law," TSE Working Papers 18-975, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    13. Crystal S. Yang, 2015. "Free at Last? Judicial Discretion and Racial Disparities in Federal Sentencing," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(1), pages 75-111.
    14. Christina L. Boyd & Pauline T. Kim & Margo Schlanger, 2020. "Mapping the Iceberg: The Impact of Data Sources on the Study of District Courts," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 466-492, September.
    15. Greg Goelzhauser, 2024. "Constitutional accountability for police shootings," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 92-108, March.
    16. Christoph Engel, 2017. "Does Efficiency Trump Legality? The Case of the German Constitutional Court," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2017_20, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    17. David S. Abrams & Marianne Bertrand & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2012. "Do Judges Vary in Their Treatment of Race?," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(2), pages 347-383.
    18. Bekkerman, Anton & Gilpin, Gregory A., 2014. "Can equitable punishment be mandated? Estimating impacts of sentencing guidelines on disciplinary disparities," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 51-61.
    19. Chen, Daniel L., 2018. "Machine Learning and Rule of Law," IAST Working Papers 18-88, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    20. Joshua B. Fischman & Max M. Schanzenbach, 2012. "Racial Disparities Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: The Role of Judicial Discretion and Mandatory Minimums," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 729-764, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:18:y:2021:i:3:p:603-628. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.