I wish more judges would do what this federal judge did when he got a complaint from Lance Armstrong that was full of invective and boilerplate instead of genuine legal and factual claims: He threw it out. Armstrong filed the suit in hope of quashing doping charges against him.
Sam Sparks, of United States District Court, chastised Armstrong’s lawyers for submitting a lengthy complaint filled with allegations that “were totally irrelevant to Armstrong’s claims.”
Sparks said in his order that the court was left to presume that the allegations “were included solely to increase media coverage of this case, and to incite public opinion against” the antidoping agency and Travis Tygart, the agency’s chief executive, who is also named as a defendant.
“This court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong’s desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through 80 mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims,” Sparks said.
The judge added that Armstrong could refile his case within 20 days, but only if he limited his pleadings to information that was legally relevant to his case.
This is actually one of the hallmarks of lawsuits filed by wingnuts. Every complaint I’ve ever read from Larry Klayman or from the Thomas More Law Center has consisted of about 90% political rhetoric, with very little in the way of actual legal or factual claims. If more judges did this, that kind of thing would start to go away.