David Anthony Stebbins, aka Acerthorn, is a prolific (and prolix) pro-se litigant. He has filed a huge number of cases and appeals, enough that it is quite hard to count exactly.
But how long can this asshole string a meritless lawsuit out?
As usual, it depends.
Longest-running
In terms of time elapsed, there’s a clear winner: Stebbins v. Boone County, Arkansas (3:12-cv-03022), District Court, W.D. Arkansas was filed on Feb 17, 2012, and terminated on March 30, 2015, but the final action was a US Court of Appeals mandate affirming dismissal on August 4, 2016 – over four and a half years later.
That case is also probably a winner in terms of sheer waste of effort. 188 docket entries, 207 documents in total, multiple futile applications for writs of mandamus, and even a petition to the Supreme Court, for a case that was meritless from the outset. As Jason Day, the jail administrator, testified:
David Stebbins was brought to our facility for intake. Officer Jason Jones called me and said Stebbins had sued him before and that he wanted limited dealings with him. Jones stated he felt this would be best because of how Stebbins is so quick to file frivolous lawsuits and has issues with Jones. I advised Jones to have limited dealings with Stebbins as his job would allow.
Wait, what? “Stebbins had sued him before?” When? And why? Well, dear reader, it looks like Jason Jones the prison guard might be the same guy as Jason Jones the proprietor of Mid States Promotions. This case, as far as I can tell, was Stebbins’ first foray into pro-se litigation, and one of his few successes: Stabby said he got $300 out of Jones, which is probably just a refund of the fee he paid for the course.
Most prolix
If you’re going by number of filings, though, Stebbins v. Polano (4:21-cv-04184) District Court, N.D. California, has more documents. Between filing, on June 2, 2021, and the dismissal of the final appeal on October 24, 2024, nearly three and a half years later, the case amassed 199 docket entries and 221 documents. And in terms of wasted resource it’s hard to beat.
Stebbins sued Polano for “two counts of copyright infringement, one count of knowing material
misrepresentation in violation of 17 USC §5 l 2(t)(2), and for the common law tort of intentional
infliction of emotional distress.” It’s pretty clear that Stebbins primary concern was the offense of causing butthurt int he first degree, because he goes on ad nauseam about how much Polano hated him and mocked him for his vexatious pro-se litigation.
The case was devoid of merit. The “accidental livestream” was not copyrightable as a matter of settled law (see also: monkey selfie, in which another incoherent ape was not awarded copyright), and the use was transformative and covered by fair use anyway, being a short segment of a two hour long non-copyrightable livestream extracted and used for purposes of satire.
It is a tale, Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
William Shakespeare, Macbeth
The “harassment” consists of mere vulgar abuse, and the republication of information placed in the public domain by Stebbins himself, through his LOLsuits. The accusation of misrepres4entation is not pled at all. And the demanded relief, which included $1.3 million in damages? Well, that was plainly fatuous.
The death blow was delivered on 11 July 2022, when the judge allowed Alphabet and YouTube to intervene, linked it to the Rebolo case, involving the same content, and dismissed the case because the permission to proceed in forma pauperis was revoked: “as the Intervenors note, at the time the Court screened the complaint, it was not aware that Plaintiff’s registration was based on an inaccurate application”.
Most blatantly frivolous
In terms of all-out batshit insanity it would be hard to beat Stebbins v. State of Texas (3:11-cv-02227), District Court, N.D. Texas, filed on August 29, 2011, and dismissed on December 11 the same year, along with its several sisters. Stabby thought he had come up with the “one weird trick” to make people pay him the vast sums to which he fondly believes he is entitled. He sent an email saying that a contract existed between him and Texas if they did not return one dollar that Stabby sent on 5 August; if the dollar was not returned, then Stabby got to enforce any dispute with binding arbitration, with a default victory clause saying that if TX did not respond in an absurdly short timeframe, then he would win regardless of the merits.
On August 1, 2011, I submitted a contract offer tot he Defendants’ Attorney General, via email. 9 U. S. C. § 9 states that a court unequivocally must confirm an arbitration award, unless it is first vacated or modified, as prescribed by §§ 10 and 11. There is nothing malleable about “must grant,” and § 9 carries no hint of flexibility in this regard.
Alas for Stabby, there was no meeting of the minds, and thus, no contract. So, dear reader, he lost the dollar he sent and did not get his five TRILLION dollars in return.
I call this case out because it is really not one case, but five: “This is not Plaintiff’s first request to confirm an arbitration award. During the past six months, Plaintiff has filed four other cases seeking confirmation of nonexistent arbitration awards.” And, “Plaintiff’s request to confirm an arbitration award against the State of Texas in the amount of $5,000,000,000,000.00 has no basis in law or fact. Plaintiff seeks confirmation of an arbitration award that never existed, in a case that was not subject to an arbitration agreement, and where the parties never participated in an arbitration. Moreover, his factual assertions that the alleged contract was formed when Plaintiff sent an e-mail to Defendant with a blog link and a dollar bill describe fantastic or delusional scenarios that are clearly irrational and incredible.”
Between them, these five cases added up to 163 filings and wasted five years of combined court time.
Deucerthorn 