Worst (Best?) Pro Per Complaint Ever!

I read a lot of legal pleadings in my job, including many by pro per plaintiffs of questionable sanity. But the one I read today takes the cake.

Plaintiff Zubair Shah claims to have been a student at U.C. Hastings College of Law (my alma mater) in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Shah further claims to be a Muslim and an immigrant from Pakistan.

On January 16, 2004 he filed an "AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS & HATE CRIMES" in San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. 422114, against one of his professors (who I'll identify only as "Professor M." for reasons that will become apparent) and "Does 1 Through 50," apparently including an unnamed Hastings security guard. Though the complaint has since been dismissed, it is a public record and the file has not been sealed or otherwise expunged.

Mr. Shah starts off by alleging that Hastings has a pro-Israeli bent, and that it was hostile to him and other Muslims who questioned Israel's policies.

But then, inexplicably, he starts describing a sexual relationship he allegedly had with Professor M. in extraordinarily graphic detail (including footnotes and dialogue) as quoted below (the errors and oddities in the text are reproduced exactly from the original):

6. During those times, Plaintiff was having a minor sexual flicker with erratic Clinical Professor [M.]. However, soon Plaintiff decided to maintain his distance with her, as she could not pass the fact that Plaintiff could not have anal sex (n.2) with her because of his religious beliefs. Besides, [Professor M.'s] obsession with kinky and deviant sexual practices with elaborate voodoo rites scared a hell out of Plaintiff, who is Muslim (n.3) immigrant from Pakistan. Moreover, [Professor M's] obsessive and compulsive use of prosthetic devices (n.4) to enhance her own sexual experience was another source of Plaintiff?s discomfort.

n.2 Once [Professor M.] uttered profanities against the prophet of Islam out of her anger and frustration, when Plaintiff simply declined to engage in anal sex.

n.3 Islam proscribes mutually reciprocated hygienic ways of coupling between heterosexual partners.

n.4 Once [Professor M.] inserted a prosthetic device which looks like a male genitalia in her anal opening in order to entice the Plaintiff. However, apparently she was suffering from diarrhea; therefore some dense excretory fluid involuntarily came out. [Professor M.] wiped it off with her hand and afterwards started licking the yellowish fluid with her hand. Plaintiff in shock mildly yelled, "That could get you salmonella." [Professor M.] while feasting on her own excretion replied, "How do you think I have got my mojo."

I just about fell out of my chair! My law school actually let this guy in??? [Please keep in mind that these are only unproven allegations in a complaint that has since been dismissed. They sound rather dubious to me.]

A few paragraphs later, Mr. Shah alleges that "the College had fraudulently taken a restraining order against the Plaintiff in an ex parte hearing by alleging that Plaintiff could be a violent psycho."

If you wish, you can read a scanned copy of the "Amended Complaint" filed 1/16/04 by going to the court's website and searching for case number 422114 using the button labeled "Case Number Query." But be sure to read and follow the directions about "Viewing Scanned Documents" in the big yellow box in the middle of the page before you try to do so.