10-13539-H ________________________________ District Court No.: 1:08-cv-1971-WSD James B. Stegeman Versus Superior Court, et., al., Defendants-Appellees Plaintiff-Appellant,

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR THE COURT TO DIRECT THE CLERKS TO CEASE HINDERING APPELLANT’S ATTEMPTS TO APPEAL, AND FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW OF APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS COMES NOW, APPELLANT, James B. Stegeman, who, pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 27-1(b)(2), files Emergency Motion for the Court to Direct the Clerks to Cease Hindering Appellant’s Attempt to Appeal, and For Expedited Review of Appellant’s Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis. In support of

Appellant’s requests, he shows this Court the following pertinent facts.

There is a likelihood that Appellant will prevail on the merits; There will be irreparable injury to the Appellant, if relief is withheld; There is no possibility of harm to other parties if relief is granted; and It is within the public’s interest that this Motion is granted. The paragraphs below show proper grounds for this Court to Grant Appellant’s Motion. Further, Appellant is invoking the full extent of his Rights under ADA Title II, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. A ADA Title II and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

The United States as Intervenor in Spencer v Earley, et., al., fully explained the constitutionality, responsibilities concerning, and rights of those protected by ADA Title II and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act as follows: 1. The ADA established a “comprehensive national mandate for the

elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. 12101(b)(1). Congress found that, “historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities,” and that “such forms of discrimination… continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem.” 42 U.S.C. 12101(a)(2). Congress specifically found that discrimination against persons with disabilities “persists in such critical areas as employment, housing, public accommodations, education, transportation, communication, recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting, and access to public services.” 42 U.S.C. 12101(a)(3). In addition,

Congress found that persons with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination, including outright intentional exclusion, the discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation, and communication barriers, overprotective rules and policies, failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices, exclusionary qualification standards and criteria, segregation, and relegation to lesser services, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other opportunities. 42 U.S.C. 12101(a)(5). Congress concluded that persons with disabilities have been faced with restrictions and limitations, subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment, and relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our society, based on characteristics that are beyond the control of such individuals and resulting from stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of the individual ability of such individuals to participate in, and contribute to, society. 42 U.S.C. 12101(a)(7). Based on those findings, Congress “invoke[d] the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the fourteenth amendment,” to enact the ADA. 42 U.S.C. 12101(b)(4). The ADA Title II, 42 U.S.C. 12131-12165, addresses discrimination by state and local governmental entities in the operation of public services, programs, and activities. Appellant is invoking his Rights under ADA Title II, which provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. 12132. A “public entity” is defined to include “any State or local

government” and its components, 42 U.S.C. 12131(1)(A) and (B). Title II’s coverage of “services, programs, or activities,”, and Congress expressly abrogated the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity to such suits in federal court, 42 U.S.C. 12202. Title II prohibits governments from, among other things, denying a benefit to a qualified individual with a disability because of his disability, providing him with a lesser benefit than is given to others, or limiting his enjoyment of the rights and benefits provided to the public at large. See 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(1)(i), (iii), and (vii).1 In addition, while there is no absolute duty to accommodate individuals with a disability, a public entity must make reasonable modifications to its policies, practices, or procedures if necessary to avoid the exclusion of individuals with disabilities, unless the accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the government, or would fundamentally alter the nature of the service. See 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7), 35.150(a)(2) and (3). The ADA does not normally require a public entity to make its existing physical facilities accessible. 28 C.F.R. 35.150(a)(1). Public entities need only ensure that “each service, program, or activity…when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. 35.150(a). However, buildings constructed or altered after Title II’s effective date must be designed to Congress instructed the Attorney General to issue regulations to implement Title II, based on regulations previously promulgated under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794 (2000 & Supp. I 2001). See 42 U.S.C. 12134.


provide accessibility. 28 C.F.R. 35.151. 2. Section 504(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits any “program or

activity receiving federal financial assistance” from “subject[ing any person] to discrimination” on the basis of disability. 29 U.S.C. 794(a). Individuals have a private right of action for damages against entities that receive federal funds and violate that prohibition. See 29 U.S.C. 794(a) Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002); Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 590 n.4 (1999). In 1985, the Supreme Court held that the text of Section 504 was not sufficiently clear to evidence Congress’s intent to condition federal funding on a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity for private damages actions against state entities. See Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 245-246 (1985). In response to Atascadero, Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. 2000d-7 as part of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-506, § 1003, 100 Stat. 1845. Section 2000d-7 provides, in relevant part: (1) A State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal court for a violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [29 U.S.C. 794],… (2) In a suit against a State for a violation of a statute referred to in paragraph (1), remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in the suit against any public or private entity other than a State.. 42 U.S.C. 2000d-7(a). Every Court, and Legal Program that Appellant has attempted to obtain

assistance from with legal problems, or sought an attorney’s aid through, has consistently denied Appellant his Right to the assistance, in direct violation of ADA Title II. B August 30, 2010

August 30, 2010, the date that the Courier hand-delivered Appellant’s Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis, the Clerk of this Court, had already written up a letter dated September 03, 2010 “Exhibit 1” and a letter dated September 07, 2010 “Exhibit 2”, which were both obtained from the Pacer Website on or around September 1, 2010. The dates at the tops of the letter reflect the date on which the letters were filed, that date is 08/30/2010. There is a real problem with the Clerks of this Court tampering with and hindering Appellant’s attempts to Appeal. It must not be allowed. It has been held that: “The most basic function of a court system is to promote the rule of law. Courts promote the rule of law by earning the respect of the people as the fair and dispassionate arbiters of society's disputes, …. A court system cannot operate effectively without the respect of the people. If the people do not respect the judiciary, the people will disobey its edicts and flout its commands. The people will resort to self-help. Court personnel who cause people to question the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary therefore undermine the rule of law and disrupt the functioning of the courts.” US v Gunby, 112 F.3d 1493,

79 A.F.T.R.2d 97-2764, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 960 (11th Cir. 1997). It is well known that the Court’s clerks enjoy judicial immunity. By the Courts extending immunity to the Clerks, the Courts are thereby responsible for their Clerks’ actions and/or inactions. C This is Not the First Time This Appellant has Filed an Appeal in This Appellant has successfully filed an Appeal in the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit,2 otherwise, he would be much more inclined to believe that he erred. Appellant knows for a fact, that the claims made by the Clerk when he attempted to Appeal in 2009,3 were erroneous. The first time Appellant filed Motion for In Forma Pauperis in the 11th Circuit, was filed on or around October 19, 2007. This Court denied the Motion, because District Court had claimed that the Appeal would be frivolous. This time, the Court had already granted Pauperis status, thus the reason Appellant felt it necessary for him to provide an explanation to this Court of why this Appeal could not be deemed frivolous. D Current Attempt to Appeal


Appellant had a Courier deliver (“Exhibit 3”)4 Motion to Proceed on Appeal in Forma Pauperis, using the Court’s preprinted Motion with Affidavit


See Stegeman v State Appeal No.: 07-13540-BB See Stegeman v Superior Court Appeal No. 08-16174-CC Receipt for Courier Service showing destinations, the date, time of delivery, etc.



showing the Court meritorious ground for his Motion to be granted “Exhibit 4”.5 The following day, Appellant’s copy was delivered back in the mail. The Copy he received back, rather than being stamped as “Filed”, the Motion was stamped “Received”, see Exhibit 4.6 Appellant attempted to call the Clerk to inquire about the problem, but only received the clerk’s voicemail. The following day, Pacer website for the Eleventh Cir. showed that the Motion had been filed, on August 30, 2010 “Exhibit 4”; Appellant gave it no more thought. Next thing Appellant knows he gets a letter that either the Motion for In Forma Pauperis has to be filed, or the costs for the Appeal paid to the District Court. Appellant is resending the Motion, Affidavit, and supplemental pleading in support of Appellant’s Motion to proceed in forma pauperis, see “Exhibit 3”. Apparently, the Clerks have decided to hinder and tamper with every Appeal that Appellant has attempted to file with this Court; beginning with his attempt to Appeal this case from District Court in 20097. Although Appellant had couriered to the Court, the Motion and Affidavit for Forma Pauperis, which included all the required documents, and the Certificate of NOTE: The Original, Certified Denial from the District Court was attached to the Motion to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis that was hand-delivered by the Courier; what the Clerk has done with what was sent, is anybody’s guess.

The entire Motion, with Exhibits is attached hereto as Exhibit 4; rather than include it is part of the current Motion(s), Appellant has it attached as an Exhibit, just in case the Clerk has a tendency to get confused.

See Exhibit 2 attached to Exhibit 4, which is the letters from the Clerk had sent blocking the Appeal.


Interested Persons, the Clerk sent Appellant the following letter “Exhibit 5” , stating that Appellant had not filed the Motion and Affidavit, and/or had not paid the filing fee for the Appeal to the District Court. The clerk’s letter clearly states that within fourteen days, Appellant must comply or his Appeal will again be dismissed, just like the last time he attempted to Appeal, but was blocked by the Clerk. CONCLUSION Should the Clerks continue blocking Appellant and refusing to file his documents, claiming that there was something missing, when he is positive nothing was missing, and when the courier also saw what was being delivered to the Court, and signed a documents saying as much; Appellant will have no other choice than to either file for a Writ of Mandamus, or attempt a Direct Appeal to the US Supreme Court. REQUEST FOR RELIEF Appellant has complied with the whims of this Court’s Clerks, and moves the Court for an Order directing the Clerk to cease tampering with and hindering his attempts to Appeal. Appellant further moves the Court for an Expedited

Ruling on this matter, rather than have further delays.

Respectfully submitted this 16th day of September, 2010,

BY: ___________________________ JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se 821 Sheppard Rd. Stone Mountain, GA 30083 (404) 300-9782 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Certify that I have this 16th day of September, 2010 served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Emergency Motion for the Court to Direct the Clerks to Cease Hindering Appellant’s Attempt to Appeal, and For Expedited Review of Appellant’s Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis upon Defendants/Appellees, through their attorneys on record by causing to be deposited with the U.S.P.S., First Class Mail, proper postage affixed thereto, addressed as follows: Daniel S. Reinhardt Troutman Sanders, LLP Bank of America Plaza – Suite 5200 600 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 Devon Orland State of Georgia Dept. of Law 40 Capitol Square, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30334-1300

_______________________________ JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se 821 Sheppard Rd Stone Mountain, GA 30083 (404) 300-9782


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful