I can't reply on the other thread. But I just wanted to say that although I am not a legal expert, to me it doesn't make sense to say that a judge cannot dismiss a case unless the defendant files a motion to dismiss. A judge does not need the defense to file a motion to dismiss when the facts are overwhelmingly clear. The main reason the judge seeks to have the defendant file a motion for his own defense is because it is overwhelming and time consuming to try to fully argue both sides, and the Judge is not fully informed of all the facts, so gives time for the defendant to defend themselves in case the plaintiff has misrepresented facts, or the defendant brings key things of relevance to his attention that was previously unknown. If the judge already has enough evidence from the outset that overwhelmingly proves that the lawsuit is not valid, he does not have to wait for the defense. It is the judge's decision whether a case has merit or not. Typically, a judge doesn't want to rush to judgment for fear of being wrong or too quick to presume. But in this case, he has already ruled with her on similar cases with similar rulings, so being familiar with the facts, he can easily assess the legitimacy or lack thereof of her lawsuits.
Also it should be noted, in her previous lawsuit to this one, she was told that because she has done lawsuits so often, he will no longer treat her as being inexperienced with legal proceedings, since he has instructed her what to do on many occasions.
http://www.vawd.uscourts.gov/OPINIONS/JONES/2-18cv00045.pdf
Key excerpts from the previous opinion issued by James Jones in the previous lawsuit:
"Melinda Scott, a frequent pro se litigant in this court, has submitted an application to file a civil action without prepaying fees or costs."
and
"While I will permit the filing of the action without prepayment of fees and costs, I will dismiss it, both because Ms. Scott cannot represent her minor child and because the allegations fail to support a cause of action. While a pro se litigant is not held to the standard of an attorney in pleading, Ms. Scott has considerable experience in her prior court filings to understand the necessity of pleading facts. While she asserts some details of various alleged instances of harassment by other tenants, she alleges no facts that would impose responsibility on the housing authority for such harassment. I will also direct the Clerk to file the Complaint and related documents under seal, since Ms. Scott has stated her minor child’s full name in those pleadings, rather than the child’s initials, in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)"
Also to correct false things stated: first of all, Melinda is not my ex wife. She is an ex friend, and we were very close almost best friends, though she feels differently with hindsight. She expressed great romantic interest in me at one point, including strong possibility of marriage according to her. However, we were never in an actual relationship beyond unofficial courting (we were never boyfriend and girlfriend). Another thing is that to be clear, she doesn't have to pay any money for all these lawsuits, that's the problem. By allowing her to file without paying, he enables her to do all these many lawsuits for free. If it actually cost her money to do the lawsuits she probably would stop doing them. But he doesn't want to break the law by violating her rights to file just because she's annoying. So he is trying to be very careful and he'd rather just allow her to not pay and just dismiss than to deal with a lawsuit for not allowing her to not pay lol.
Here's a vid response I did to the most recent lawsuit from Melinda. If its too long for you but you want to watch it still, try watching at 1.5x or even 2x; should still be easy to understand since I generally talk slow anyways, so speeding it up 2x will be understandable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkjchzIYCWI
