Cited by

Additionally, Reis argues that the distri ct court should have accommodated him because he was a self-represented litigan t. While courts may make “some accommodations” for self-represented litigants, we have “repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as atto rneys and must comply with court rules.” Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

from Uganda and presumably has no inherent or learned knowledge of the operation of the court system in this country.” But as the district court noted , “ [a]lthough some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

But this court has “repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.” Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

But we have repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are “generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.” Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

al hearing, or the July 30 pretrial hearing wh en the district court ruled that it would permit the children 8 We recognize that mother was self-represente d at trial but this court has “repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally he ld to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.” Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

However, pro se litigants “are generally held to the same standards as attorneys,” and the ULJ must remain neutral, even when assisting a self -represented party in the presentation of their evidence.

Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

Though courts may make “some accommodations” for self-represented litigants, “this court has repeatedly emphasized that [self-represented] litigants are generally held to the same st andards as attorneys and must comply with co urt rules.” Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

making this determination, asserting that pro se pleadings should be liberally construed and that “there was sufficient indicia of appella nts’ intent to contest the charges.” Amro acknowledges that, “[a]lthough some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants,” they “are generally held to th e same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

However, pro se litigants “are generally held to the same standards as attorneys,” and the ULJ remains neutral, even when assisting a self-represented party in the presentation of their evidence, Stassen, d at 32.

Father cites no legal authority in support of this argument, see Grigsby, d at 726 (concluding that arguments submitted without legal authority are waived), and this court has repeatedly held that “pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys.”

ommunicating to the court what it is [they] want [] accomplished and by whom.” Carpenter v. Woodvale, Inc. , see Gruenhagen v. Larson , (stating that court will not , generally, modify ordinary rules and procedures on the grounds that a pro se party lacks the skills and expertise of an attorney); Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald , (“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorne

d 115, 119 (Minn. App. 2001).

Se lf-represented litigants “are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.” Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald , (Mi nn.

“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly 13 emphasized that pro se litigants are generally he ld to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

While courts typically accord some “leeway” to self -represented litigants, such litigants are “still not relieved of the burden of, at least, adequately communicating to the court what it is [ the party] wants accomplished and by whom.” Carpenter v. Woodvale, Inc., (citation omitted); see also Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald , (stating that “[a]lthough some accommodations may be mad e for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standa

“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.” (providing that a party that appears pro se “is held to the standard of an attorney in presenting his appeal”).

Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald , (citations omitted) .

See, e.g., Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald , (noting that some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, but this court generally holds pro se litigants to the same standard as attorneys and they must comply with court rul es).

least, adequately communicating to the court what it is he wants accomplished and by whom.” Carpenter v. Woodvale, Inc. , see Gruenhagen v. Larson , (stating that , generally, a court will not modify ordinary rules and procedures because a pro se party lacks the skills and knowledge of an attorney); (stating that “[a]lthough some accommodations may be m ade for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and m

(explaining that, while pro se litigants are afforded some accommodations, they are generally held to the same standards as attorneys).

“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this co urt has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.” Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules .”

least, adequately communicating to the court what it is [she] wants accomplished and by whom.” Carpenter v. Woodvale, Inc. , (stating that generally, a court will not modify ordinary rules and procedures because a pro se party lacks the skills and knowledge of an attorney); (“A lthough some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”).

See Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald , , 119 (Minn. App. 2001).

7 “Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigan ts, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.” Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

(“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”).

“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must compl y with court rules.”

But pro se litigants “are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”

see also Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald , (“Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, this court has repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with court rules.”).

Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

Although appella nt is a pro se litigant, this court generally holds pro se litigants to the same standard as attorneys, and arguments unsupported by authorities or argument are “not [] considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection,” Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20

Carpenter v. Woodvale, Inc., (stating that pro se litigants retain the burden of communicating the relief they are seeking to a court); Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald , (emphasizing that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys).