Was this written by 13-year-old aspiring John Grisham?

If not, it's just embarrassing:

Defendant [prison guards] entered [plaintiff's] cell with plans for a party. And though [plaintiff] was invited to this party, his only purpose at this party was to be their personal pinata. Once Defendant[s] entered the cell they began putting a whooping on [plaintiff] like none he had ever experienced before. Each of the Defendant[s] took turns punching and kicking [plaintiff] in the head and torso of his body. Unfortunately, when the beating had ceased, no candy spilled out of [plaintiff], rather, he was left with three broken ribs from this brutal and savage attack.

1. Sorry for the excessive bracketing, but after a traumatic pinata experience, the guy deserves some anonymity. But not so much that his pain shouldn't be posted as fodder for amusement, of course.

2. To clarify for any non-lawyers out there, "putting a whooping" is not a term of art.

3. I think the head of my body is getting a headache. Of my body.

4. The metaphor was so good that the final comma splice was really gilding the lily.

Charging by the word now, eh?

"Thus, in light of the facts of this case and the law governing the disputed facts, it becomes transparently obvious that current and former employees of Defendant, if do have "a right" to recover for any time spent performing the activities complained of in the complaint, if said activities were uncompensated. Other than compensability under the FLSA, a far more nebulous question to resolve (though readily ascertainable after discovery) is how much time is owed on an average is owed to class members."

Res Ipsa Loquitard

"When reviewed in accordance with the facts in the Forte and Hood and Rast cases and the above legal authorities, the question is presented - what difference results in deciding the issues surrounding Plaintiff's motion to consolidate, whether in the manner in which Plaintiff seeks or in the manner in which Defendant seeks? The answer is none, with one big exception."

The One that Got Away was Even Bigger!

From a pro se litigant, explaining why 28 USC 2241's limitations period for filing habeas claims does not bar his petition:

Petitioner has made/shown diligent deep sea fishing and as a result hooked a predicate not knowing it's revelation.

1. Spell-check much? 2. Um... what?

"The instant case presents a plethera [sic] of facts that unequivicably [sic] establish that Plaintiff was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment and the victim of sex-based discrimination."