Summary for Pro Se Plaintiff

The magistrate judge is recommending that the motion for summary judgment be granted. Your evidence does not show that Nurse Yule, Nurse Practitioner Housley, or Dr. Wong acted in ways that they knew were likely to cause you additional harm or suffering. Such evidence is required to show a violation of your Eighth Amendment rights. A difference of opinion with your medical providers is not enough. Even negligence in responding to your injury and resulting pain is not enough. Because there is no evidence showing that any defendant acted with the knowledge that their actions created a significant risk to you, and deliberately disregarded that risk, a jury could not find in your favor.

Snowden v. Yule, No. 2:17-cv-2167 (E.D. Cal. 2023) (order and findings and recommendations)

1.0 Why jurists should include a plain-language summary section in their written decisions

For people to trust a court, they need to understand what the judge writes.

This requires judges to keep in mind how 1 out of 7 adults living in the United States cannot read well (is functionally illiterate), and nearly 1 in 3 can only read and understand simple phrases.

And because written court decisions are often read by the involved parties, their lawyers (if any), and shared online by parties [link example], the media [link example], or others interested [link example], there is a growing need for clear language in all written court decisions—not just those involving a self-represented party.

Plain language is in. Bloated legal language and complicated sentences and paragraphs are out.

And some judges go a helpful step further by including a simple summary in their written decisions.

Using five trial and appellate court decisions, this post will show how the AI tool Claude.ai can help judges (or their law clerks) create the first draft of a written decision’s simple summary.

2.0 Simple summary examples in judicial writing

U.S. Magistrate Judge Allison Claire (E.D., California) adds the summary near the end of her orders or opinions. Her heading caption has alternated between “Plain language summary for pro se plaintiff”, “Summary for pro se plaintiff”, or “Plain English summary for pro se plaintiff”. [Link for current related docket entries.]

U.S. Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell (Colorado) puts the summary near the start of her orders or opinions, right after a quick procedural introduction. She titles this section with: “Summary for pro se plaintiff”. [Link for current related docket entries.] When a reporter asked one of the self-represented litigants about the judge’s plain-language summary, the person said it helped them better understand the rest of the order.

It’s not surprising that U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney (Colorado) follows the same style as Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell, as they both work in the same court. [Link for current related Sweeney docket entries.] At least once, however, Judge Sweeney has also used the section title: “Summary for pro se habeas applicant”.

And, over in Minnesota, U.S. Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko has included summaries towards the end of at least two of the reports and recommendations he has so far filed in 2024 (Docket No. 23-cv-0939 and Docket No. 22-cv-2108).

3.0 Key elements of a simple, plain-language summary

3.1 When a party is self-represented, use the second-person point of view (addressing them using “you” or “your”).

(For example, “Your complaint states an Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Li, but does not contain facts that state claims against the other named defendants.”)

3.2 Use simple sentences. Break up longer sentences. Don’t use long, complicated sentences full of legal details.

Notice how, for example, this 71-word sentence can be broken into shorter, more understandable, seven sentences.

Before

After

The plaintiff filed a “statement of witnesses” listing Brittany Humphrey, the plaintiff’s girlfriend, and her statement providing: (1) she was present when the subject tree was inspected by David Bruckner, an arborist, after the windstorm and (2) Bruckner told her there was decay at the base of the limbs possibly caused by a previous lightning strike from years prior and the tree was a hazard and needed to be removed.

The plaintiff filed a “statement of witnesses”. This listed Brittany Humphrey, the plaintiff’s girlfriend. Her statement said two things. First, she was present when an arborist named David Bruckner inspected the subject tree after the windstorm. Second, Bruckner told her there was decay at the base of the limbs. He said this decay was possibly caused by an earlier lightning strike years ago. Bruckner said the tree was a hazard and needed to be removed.

3.3 Aim for a sixth-grade reading level like advised by the Illinois Supreme Court’s Policy on Plain Language. This will be harder than you think!

• Writing tip: Word Editor’s “Document stats” will calculate the readability score.

3.4 Use simple words and avoid complicated legal terms (jargon)

Instead of:	Try:
cognizable	recognized
exhaust	use up all available options
equitable	fair
further	also
futile	having no chance for success
opportunity	chance
with prejudice	permanently and cannot be re-filed
indicate	show

Or explain legal terms within parenthesis to make them easier to understand, like:

• affirmed (agreed with)
• amount in controversy (amount of money being sought or disputed)
• de novo (a new review of the facts and law)
• in forma pauperis (with court fees waived)
• deliberate indifference (knowing neglect)
• frivolous (baseless)
• official capacity (role)
• protected activity (the right to do something without fear of punishment)
• without prejudice (meaning that you can refile your claims if . . . .)
• subject-matter jurisdiction (the court’s authority to decide a dispute)

Writing tips:

• Adjust Word’s Editor settings for “Casual writing”
• Sign up and use the BriefCatch legal editing plugin tool. Receive help from automatic editing suggestions like “You do not have to file . . . .“ to replace “You are not obligated to file an . . . .“
• Use the free Grammarly tool for more general suggestions on making your writing clearer and more concise.
• If you can’t think of a simple way to say something, you can try asking an AI tool for help. Use a prompt like “Give me five ways to say the legal term [insert term] in plain language.”

4.0 Claude.ai can be a useful tool to start drafting the summary (unless the written decision will be filed under confidential seal)

Claude is a large language model (LLM) built by Anthropic. It has free and subscription models. One of its features allows users to upload documents for processing by prompts. Claude will generate a response (output) based on the user’s prompt.

While Claude has a privacy policy, personal or confidential information should not be shared with the platform. The tool should be limited to general writing, summarizing, or idea-generating uses.

Once a written decision is close to finalization, here are examples of how Claude can be prompted to “first draft” a simple summary that the author can edit and refine based on personal knowledge and through using other editing tools.

5.0 Drafted summary examples using Claude.ai

Example #1 (4-page Illinois state court appellate decision)

Claude.ai prompt for Kronenberg v Foxland Properties, Inc., 2024 IL App (3d) 230281-U:

Draft a plain-language summary of the attached court decision. Follow these instructions. Use the second-person point of view when a party is self-represented. Use simple sentences. Aim for a sixth-grade reading level. Use plain language and avoid legal jargon. Or define legal terms to improve readability.

Claude.ai output:

Edited ai response (using Word Editor, BriefCatch, Grammarly, ChatGPT (prompt: Rewrite this sentence, if necessary, to make it more reader-friendly using plain language. Here is the sentence:), and the blog author):

You (Patrick Kronenberg) sued Foxland Properties after a tree branch fell on your vehicles during a windstorm in 2019. You had rented the property from a different company, Sudbury Investments. Your rental agreement said you were responsible for outdoor maintenance like landscaping. Before the trial, the court asked you what evidence you had that Foxland knew about any issues with the tree. You said Foxland should have inspected the property when they bought it about a year before you rented it. But you admitted you never told Foxland or Sudbury about any problems with the tree before the storm. Foxland asked the court to decide the case in their favor without a trial. They said you had been renting and using the property for months before the storm. Your rental agreement made you responsible for outdoor maintenance. And you never complained to them about the tree condition before the branch fell. The court agreed with Foxland and decided the case in their favor without a trial. You appealed, but the appeals court said the trial court made the right decision. The key reasons were: 1. You did not explain how the trial court made a mistake in deciding for Foxland. 2. As a self-represented party, you must follow the same rules as lawyers. Your appeal paperwork was inadequate and missing legal citations. 3. Even if the court mishandled issues about witnesses or records, those issues did not matter since you had no evidence Foxland knew about issues with the tree before the storm. So the appeals court upheld (agreed with) the trial court’s decision in favor of Foxland.

You (Patrick Kronenberg) represented yourself in court (pro se) and sued Foxland Properties after tree branches fell on your vehicles during a 2019 windstorm. You had rented the property from a different company, Sudbury Investments. Your written rental agreement (lease) said you were responsible for outdoor maintenance like landscaping. Before the trial, the circuit court asked you what evidence you had that Foxland knew about any issues with the tree. You said Foxland should have inspected the property when they bought it about a year before you rented it. But you admitted you never told Foxland or Sudbury about any problems with the tree before the storm. Foxland asked the circuit court to decide the case in their favor without a trial. They said you had been renting and using the property for months before the storm. Your written rental agreement made you responsible for outdoor maintenance. And you never complained to them about the tree’s condition before the branch fell. The circuit court agreed with Foxland and decided the case in their favor without a trial. You appealed, but this court has decided that the circuit court made the right decision. The key reasons were: 1. You did not explain how the circuit court made a mistake in deciding for Foxland. 2. As a self-represented party, you must follow the same rules as lawyers. Your appeal paperwork was inadequate and did not include legal citations to any relevant authority. 3. Even if the circuit court mishandled issues about witnesses or records, those issues did not matter since you had no evidence Foxland knew about issues with the tree before the storm. So this court of appeals agrees with the circuit court’s decision for Foxland. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 8.9

Example #2 (6-page federal district court decision-Delaware)

Claude.ai prompt for Wisdom v Discovery Fin. Services, No. 22-1437 (Del. 2023) (memorandum opinion):

Draft a plain-language summary of the attached court decision. Follow these instructions. Use the second-person point of view when a party is self-represented. Use simple sentences. Aim for a sixth-grade reading level. Use plain language and avoid legal jargon. Or define legal terms to improve readability.

Claude.ai output:

Edited ai response (using Word Editor, BriefCatch, Grammarly, ChatGPT (prompt: Rewrite this sentence, if necessary, to make it more reader-friendly using plain language. Here is the sentence:), and the blog author):

You (Khadir Izaah Amir: Wisdom) filed a lawsuit against Discover Financial Services and the Corporation Trust Company. You claimed that Discover committed fraud and violated lending laws when you tried to cancel a loan agreement with them. The court reviewed your complaint and decided to dismiss your case. The court found that your claims had no legal basis and did not make sense factually. The court said your allegations were “frivolous” meaning they lacked any merit or substance. The court noted that on the same day you filed very similar lawsuits against two other financial companies making basically the same claims. This made your claims seem even more unreasonable to the court. The court concluded that even if you amended your complaint, it would be futile because your claims could not proceed. So the court dismissed your case and closed the matter. You will not be able to re-file this case against Discover and the Corporation Trust Company based on these facts.

You (Khadir Izaah Amir: Wisdom) sued Discover Financial Services and the Corporation Trust Company. You claimed that the defendants committed fraud and violated lending laws when you tried to cancel a loan agreement with them. After looking at your amended (updated) complaint, this court sees that your claims don’t have any legal support and do not make sense factually. Indeed, the complaint’s claims are considered to be “frivolous”, meaning they don’t have any real merit or substance. Even if you were allowed to change your complaint again, it wouldn’t make a difference—there wouldn’t be any chance of success. Your case is dismissed for all the reasons explained in this decision. You cannot re-file this case against Discover or the Corporation Trust Company with these facts.   Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 9.0

Example #3 (14-page Michigan state trial court decision)

Claude.ai prompt for Mier v. Michigan Dept. of Corr., No. 23-000116-MB (Mich. Court of Claims 2024) (opinion and order):

Draft a plain-language summary of the attached court decision. Follow these instructions. Use the second-person point of view when a party is self-represented. Use simple sentences. Aim for a sixth-grade reading level. Use plain language and avoid legal jargon. Or define legal terms to improve readability.

Claude.ai output:

Edited ai response (using Word Editor, BriefCatch, Grammarly, ChatGPT (prompt: Rewrite this sentence, if necessary, to make it more reader-friendly using plain language. Here is the sentence:), and the blog author):

You (Michael D. Mier) are an inmate who filed a lawsuit against the Michigan Department of Corrections. You made several claims related to property that was taken from you while in prison. The court dismissed your claims about the guitar and guitar strings that were confiscated. It found you failed to properly complain about these items being taken within the required timeframe set by prison rules. The court also dismissed your claim about funds being improperly taken from your prison account to pay court-ordered costs, fees and restitution. The court said the prison was allowed to take this money based on orders from your criminal case. However, the court granted you access to a CD/DVD that contains exhibits and evidence from your criminal trial. You need these materials to represent yourself in seeking a new trial or appealing your conviction. The prison must print out exhibits that can be printed and let you view the rest on a computer for at least one hour before key deadlines. The court denied your request to get back a USB drive that was considered contraband since you obtained it improperly. But the prison must hold the USB for 28 more days in case you want it sent to someone not in prison. In summary, most of your claims were dismissed, but you will get access to the important trial exhibits needed for your criminal case matters.

You (Michael D. Mier) are an inmate who sued the Michigan Department of Corrections. You made several claims about property that was taken from you while you were in prison. Through this written decision, the court is dismissing your claims about the confiscated guitar and guitar strings. Your complaints about these items being taken must be dismissed because you didn’t report them within the timeframe set by the prison rules. Your claim about money being improperly taken from your prison account to pay court-ordered costs, fees, and restitution is also being dismissed. The Department of Corrections could take this money because of orders from your other criminal cases. You also did not timely file a grievance about any improper withdrawal before filing this lawsuit. Your request to access a CD/DVD that holds exhibits and evidence from your criminal trial is granted. You need these materials to represent yourself in seeking a new trial or appealing your conviction. The prison must print out exhibits that can be printed and let you view the rest on a computer for at least one hour before important deadlines. The prison can charge the printing costs to your prisoner account at actual cost. Your request to get back a USB drive that was considered contraband is denied because you got it in a way that wasn’t allowed. Even so, the prison must hold the USB drive for 28 more days in case you want it sent to someone outside the prison. The USB drive can be disposed of after 28 days if no instruction is received. In summary, most of your claims are dismissed, but you’ll still be able to access the important trial exhibits needed for your criminal case. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 9.0

Example #4 (9-page New Jersey state court appellate decision)

Claude.ai prompt for State v Sayad, No. A-0951-22 (Sup. Ct. NJ App. Div. 2024) (per curiam opinion):

Draft a plain-language summary of the attached court decision. Follow these instructions. Use the second-person point of view when a party is self-represented. Use simple sentences. Aim for a sixth-grade reading level. Use plain language and avoid legal jargon. Or define legal terms to improve readability.

Claude.ai output:

Edited ai response (using Word Editor, BriefCatch, Grammarly, ChatGPT (prompt: Rewrite this sentence, if necessary, to make it more reader-friendly using plain language. Here is the sentence:), and the blog author):

You (Richard Sayad) appealed your conviction for driving with an expired inspection sticker. On November 3, 2021, a police officer saw that the inspection sticker on your car had expired in January 2021 – over 10 months earlier. At your municipal court trial, the officer testified about seeing the expired sticker. You testified that you had just bought the car less than two years ago, so the sticker couldn’t have expired. You also said the sticker may have been from a different car and put on yours by mistake. The municipal court judge found the officer’s testimony credible and convicted you. You appealed to the Law Division court. After reviewing the case anew, the Law Division also found you guilty based on the officer’s credible testimony. You appealed again, raising several arguments about issues at trial. However, the Appellate Division affirmed your conviction. The court gave deference to the factual findings of the municipal and Law Division courts since two judges had examined the facts and found you guilty. The court found sufficient credible evidence in the record to support your conviction under the statute for driving with an expired inspection sticker. Your remaining arguments lacked merit. Your conviction and sentence were upheld.

You (Richard Sayad) appealed your conviction for driving with an expired inspection sticker. On November 3, 2021, a police officer saw that the inspection sticker on your car had expired back in January 2021—over 10 months earlier. At your municipal court trial, the officer testified about seeing the expired sticker. You testified that you had just bought the car less than two years ago, so the sticker couldn’t have expired. You also said the sticker belonged to another car and was mistakenly put on yours. The municipal court judge believed the officer’s testimony and found you guilty. You appealed to the Law Division court. After looking at the case again (de novo), the Law Division also found you guilty based on the officer’s believable testimony. You appealed once more, making several arguments about issues at trial. Your conviction is being affirmed (upheld) after giving deference to the findings of the Law Division court. There’s enough believable evidence in the record to support your conviction for driving with an expired inspection sticker. Your remaining arguments lack merit. Your conviction and sentence are affirmed (upheld). Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 9.9

Example #5 (3-page Texas state court appellate decision)

Claude.ai prompt for Frelix v. State, No. 05-23-00631-CR, (Tex. App. 2024) (memorandum opinion):

Draft a plain-language summary of the attached court decision. Follow these instructions. Use the second-person point of view when a party is self-represented. Use simple sentences. Aim for a sixth-grade reading level. Use plain language and avoid legal jargon. Or define legal terms to improve readability.

Claude.ai output:

Edited ai response (using Word Editor, BriefCatch, Grammarly, ChatGPT (prompt: Rewrite this sentence, if necessary, to make it more reader-friendly using plain language. Here is the sentence:), and the blog author):

You (Kayla Milia Frelix) were convicted of intentionally leaving the scene of an accident where you caused damage to another vehicle. On March 31, 2017, you were arrested for this crime. On June 26, 2017, the trial court accepted your guilty plea but deferred entering a conviction. Instead, the court placed you on deferred adjudication community supervision for 14 months. However, on May 3, 2018, the State filed a motion to formally enter a conviction against you. The trial court granted this motion on June 20, 2023 and convicted you. You represented yourself (pro se) at trial and also on appeal. As a pro se litigant, you must follow the rules of appellate procedure which require presenting clear legal arguments with citations to appropriate laws and portions of the trial record. The appeals court found your brief failed to meet these minimum requirements. Your brief did not discuss any applicable law or attempt to apply the law to the facts of your case. Because your brief was inadequate and failed to properly present any legal issues for review, the appeals court affirmed the trial court’s judgment convicting you. In summary, you were convicted at trial, and your conviction was upheld on appeal because your pro se brief did not properly raise any legal arguments.

You (Kayla Milia Frelix) were convicted of intentionally and knowingly leaving the scene of an accident where you damaged another vehicle. You were arrested for this crime on March 31, 2017. On June 26, 2017, the trial court accepted your guilty plea but deferred entering a conviction (didn’t officially record a conviction). Instead, the court put you on supervised probation for 14 months. The State moved to formally enter a conviction against you on May 3, 2018. The trial court granted this motion on June 20, 2023 and convicted you. You represented yourself (pro se) at trial and also on appeal. As someone representing yourself, you need to follow the rules for appealing, which means making clear legal arguments and citing the correct laws and parts of the trial record. The brief you filed in the Court of Appeals did not meet these basic requirements. Your brief did not discuss any relevant laws or try to apply the law to the facts of your case. Because your brief didn’t meet the standards and didn’t properly present any legal issues to review, the trial court’s decision to record your guilty plea is affirmed (upheld). Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 10.0

One more practice tip

If you are unsatisfied with Claude.ai’s summarizing response, it may be a sign that the original writing is confusing, and needs more editing or development before finalization.