David vs. Goliath: How a Pro Se Litigant Beat Both the Defense and the Judge In the history of federal litigation, very few plaintiffs have managed to simultaneously corner both their opposing counsel and the presiding judge. Yet that is exactly what has happened in Lathus v. Round Valley Justice Court et al., a case already shaping up to be one of the most extraordinary civil rights battles in recent memory. A Multi-Front War Most pro se litigants — and even many attorneys — struggle to keep pace with defense counsel’s procedural maneuvers. But here, Joseph Lathus executed a rare legal strategy: ● Defaults: He secured procedural defaults by ensuring defendants were served but never answered. ● Appeals & Mandamus: He fast-tracked interlocutory appeals and petitions for writs of mandamus to the Ninth Circuit, cutting off the judge’s ability to shut the case down quietly. ● Judicial Misconduct Complaints: He escalated the fight to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council, putting Judge Dominic Lanza himself under scrutiny for ex parte conduct and sua sponte orders that defied procedure. In effect, Lathus didn’t just fight the defense; he put the judge on trial too. Why This Is Unprecedented For decades, Apache County and its counsel relied on a familiar formula: delay, dismissal motions, summary judgment, repeat. Judges often shielded county defendants by stretching procedural rules. But this time, the playbook collapsed. By keeping multiple avenues open at once — defaults in the district court, appeals in the Ninth, and oversight via judicial misconduct channels — Lathus ensured that every move was under a microscope. As a result, Judge Lanza’s controversial order dismissing the Second Amended Complaint while leaving the original served complaint unresolved has only deepened scrutiny. Legal experts call it a procedural anomaly that may end up cementing default in favor of the plaintiff. Retaliation vs. Reality Unable to defeat the claims on the merits, Apache County’s allies allegedly resorted to retaliation: sending constables to harass, delaying filings, and even pursuing contempt based on disability-related misunderstandings. Yet these actions only underscore the strength of the plaintiff’s case. With the Ninth Circuit already seized of the matter, and the Judicial Council examining misconduct allegations, the pressure on both the judge and the defense counsel has never been greater. A Historic Case in the Making What makes this story even more remarkable is the plaintiff himself: a disabled cancer survivor, father of five, and self-represented litigant. Against elite defense attorneys like Michele Molinario of Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, and withstanding judicial headwinds, he has maneuvered his way into what appears to be a likely default judgment worth millions. When successful, this case will not only mark a rare monetary judgment against Apache County in federal court, but also stand as proof that even the most entrenched systems of power can be outmaneuvered by determination, legal acumen, and relentless pressure.Joseph Lathus pro se civil rights litigant “This is not just a lawsuit — it’s a test of whether the Constitution still applies when ordinary citizens take on entrenched local power. And in this courtroom chess match, checkmate may already be on the board.” David vs. Goliath: How a Pro Se Litigant Beat Both the Defense and the Judge was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this storyDavid vs. Goliath: How a Pro Se Litigant Beat Both the Defense and the Judge In the history of federal litigation, very few plaintiffs have managed to simultaneously corner both their opposing counsel and the presiding judge. Yet that is exactly what has happened in Lathus v. Round Valley Justice Court et al., a case already shaping up to be one of the most extraordinary civil rights battles in recent memory. A Multi-Front War Most pro se litigants — and even many attorneys — struggle to keep pace with defense counsel’s procedural maneuvers. But here, Joseph Lathus executed a rare legal strategy: ● Defaults: He secured procedural defaults by ensuring defendants were served but never answered. ● Appeals & Mandamus: He fast-tracked interlocutory appeals and petitions for writs of mandamus to the Ninth Circuit, cutting off the judge’s ability to shut the case down quietly. ● Judicial Misconduct Complaints: He escalated the fight to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council, putting Judge Dominic Lanza himself under scrutiny for ex parte conduct and sua sponte orders that defied procedure. In effect, Lathus didn’t just fight the defense; he put the judge on trial too. Why This Is Unprecedented For decades, Apache County and its counsel relied on a familiar formula: delay, dismissal motions, summary judgment, repeat. Judges often shielded county defendants by stretching procedural rules. But this time, the playbook collapsed. By keeping multiple avenues open at once — defaults in the district court, appeals in the Ninth, and oversight via judicial misconduct channels — Lathus ensured that every move was under a microscope. As a result, Judge Lanza’s controversial order dismissing the Second Amended Complaint while leaving the original served complaint unresolved has only deepened scrutiny. Legal experts call it a procedural anomaly that may end up cementing default in favor of the plaintiff. Retaliation vs. Reality Unable to defeat the claims on the merits, Apache County’s allies allegedly resorted to retaliation: sending constables to harass, delaying filings, and even pursuing contempt based on disability-related misunderstandings. Yet these actions only underscore the strength of the plaintiff’s case. With the Ninth Circuit already seized of the matter, and the Judicial Council examining misconduct allegations, the pressure on both the judge and the defense counsel has never been greater. A Historic Case in the Making What makes this story even more remarkable is the plaintiff himself: a disabled cancer survivor, father of five, and self-represented litigant. Against elite defense attorneys like Michele Molinario of Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, and withstanding judicial headwinds, he has maneuvered his way into what appears to be a likely default judgment worth millions. When successful, this case will not only mark a rare monetary judgment against Apache County in federal court, but also stand as proof that even the most entrenched systems of power can be outmaneuvered by determination, legal acumen, and relentless pressure.Joseph Lathus pro se civil rights litigant “This is not just a lawsuit — it’s a test of whether the Constitution still applies when ordinary citizens take on entrenched local power. And in this courtroom chess match, checkmate may already be on the board.” David vs. Goliath: How a Pro Se Litigant Beat Both the Defense and the Judge was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story