Print document
 1 of 1 
  
i
   Finney v. Nugent
   Case No. 04-55769
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A REPRESENTATIVE COPY OF THE FILING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Page(s)
  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ………………………….……………..…….. v
  I.  INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………............ 1 
  II. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT …………………....….……….…… 2
  III. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW …………………………..……. 2
  IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ……………………………………..…. 4
  V. STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………………... 5
       A.  Introduction ……………………………………….………..........…. 5
       B.  The State Lawsuit ……………………………………………...……. 5
       C.  The Federal lawsuit ………………………….………………............ 7
  VI. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ……………………………………..….. 8
       A. The District Court Erred in Dismissing This Case with
            Prejudice on Jurisdictional and Immunity Grounds …………….…..... 8
       B. The District Court’s Ruling Bars ADA Law Suits ……………..…….. 8
       C. The District Court Has Acted to Deny Disabled Persons Access...….. 9
   
  VII. STANDARDS OF REVIEW ……………………………..…….…….. 9
  VIII. ARGUMENT …………………………….…………………………. 11
       A. ADA Title II Guarantees the Fundamental Constitutional Right             
  of Access to State Courts …………………….……….………….... 11   
  1. State Courts’ Duty to Accommodate ……………….……........... 11
  2. The ADA & Rehabilitation Act Encompass State Courts ….…..... 11
  3. The U.S. Department of Justice Has Prosecuted State Courts 
      
      for Failure to Comply with ADA Requirements ………………..... 13
ii
   Finney v. Nugent
   Case No. 04-55769
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
  4. ADA Title II Establishes a Private Right of Action …...……......... 15
Table of Contents - Continued
  5. ADA Title II Covers All Court Programs, Services  
       and Activities ………………………………………….………... 16 
      B.  Disabled Persons in California are Systematically Deprived of 
            Their Fundamental Rights to Access and Petition the Courts …….... 20
  1. California Rule of Court 989.3 Is Facially Unconstitutional
      In Violation of the First & Fourteenth Amendments …………….. 20
      a. Void on Vagueness Doctrine …………………………………. 20
      b. Undue Burden ………………………………………………... 24
      c. Delay …………………………………………………………. 25
      d. Overbreadth Doctrine ………………………………………... 26
  2. CRC 989.3 Is Facially Discriminatory in Violation of
     ADA Title II …………………………………………………...… 28
  3. CRC 989.3 Is a Fraudulent Misrepresentation to the Public …...... 33
  4. As-Applied CRC 989.3 Is Unconstitutional in Violation of 
      the First & Fourteenth Amendments ………………………......... 34
  5. As-Applied CRC 989.3 Is Discriminatory In Violation of
      Of ADA Title II …………………………………………………. 34
  6. ADA Title II Violations by California Courts Are Capable of
      Repetition, Evading Review ……………………………………... 35
      C.  The District Court Erred by Mischaracterizing and Suppressing
  Material Facts ……………………………………………………… 36 
  
      D. The District Court Erred By Dismissing With Prejudice Pro Se
Claims For Which Relief Is Available ……………………………...... 46
      E. The District Court Erred by Misapplying the Rooker-Feldman
Doctrine …………………………………………………………..…. 49
 
      F.  The District Court Erred by Misapplying Eleventh Amendment     
iii
   Finney v. Nugent
   Case No. 04-55769
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
           Immunity …………………………………………………………… 57
Table of Contents - Continued
 
      G. The District Court Erred By Misapplying the Doctrines of
            Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Immunity ……………………………..... 60
  1. Judicial Immunity ……………………………………………....... 60
  2. Quasi-Judicial Immunity ……………………………………..…... 64
      H. The District Court Erred by Ignoring Ninth Circuit ADA and  
             Rehabilitation Act Decisions …………………………………..…... 65
 
      I.  The District Court Erred by Ignoring Supplemental 
  State Law Claims  ………………………………………………..…. 67
      J.  The District Court Has an Irreconcilable Conflict of Interest ……...… 69
  IX. CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………..... 72
  X.  REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT …………………………….… 73
  CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ………………………….….………. 74
  STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES …………………….…….……..... 75
  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ………………………….……………....... 76
  ADDENDUM   
1. Americans with Disabilities Act . ……………………………...…... 1-20
2. Americans with Disabilities Act Regulations …………………....…21-34
3. Rehabilitation Act/ Regulations ………………………………...… 35-38
4. California Government Code § 11135 ………………………..…... 39-40
5. California Penal Code §§ 92-93 ………………………………...……. 41
6. “Doctors Denounce Denial of Care to Some Lawyers,”
The New York Times, June 14, 2004 ………………….…..……… 42
   7. “And Access for All: Accommodating Individuals with Disabilities
iv
   Finney v. Nugent
   Case No. 04-55769
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In the California Courts” Maryann Jones, University of San
Francisco Law Review, Fall, 1997, 32 U.S.F.L. Rev. 75 ………… 58-78
Table of Contents - Continued
     8. “Most People Look Forward to Jury Duty,” San Diego Union-
Tribune, p. A-10, August 9, 2004 ……………………………….... 79-80 
9. California Code Civil Procedure §§ 196, 204, 207, 208 …………... 43-50
10. California Rule of Court 860 …………………………………....... 55-57
11. California Penal Code 96.5(a) ………………………………….......... 53