Print document
 1 of 1 
 
A REPRESENTATIVE COPY OF THE FILING
1
   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
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Appellant hereby makes this Formal Request for Judicial Notice under
the Federal Rules of Evidence § 201.  Appellant respectfully requests that
this Court take Judicial Notice of easily verified facts in the U.S. Department
of Justice’s Amicus Brief concerning a pervasive pattern of discrimination
on the basis of disability by the California court system pursuant to
Tennessee v. Lane, 124 S. Ct. 1978 (2004), the Department of Justice
Settlement Agreement imposed on the Massachusetts court system to
remedy state court systemic disability discrimination, a Notice For Trial Jury
Service, served on appellant on July 23, 2004 by the San Diego County
Superior Court, and the Department of Justice Settlement Agreement
imposed on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas to remedy systemic
jury service disability discrimination.
Appellant seeks to enforce similar remedies on the California court
system through her private attorney general action.  Due to disability
discrimination, deliberate indifference, discriminatory animus and retaliation
by the California courts, appellant’s rights and opportunities to serve as a
pro se attorney, a litigant, a witness and a trial juror have been denied. 
2
   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
Requesting ADA accommodations from the California court system and
appealing denials through a writ procedure are futile, expensive endeavors.
This Request for Judicial Notice is based upon this written request, 
appellant’s declaration and the attached exhibits. 
DECLARATION OF JACQUELYN FINNEY
IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
I, Jacquelyn Finney, declare as follows:
1.
I am the appellant pro se in this action.
2.
Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice [designated as Exhibit
No. 1] is a true and correct copy of the U.S. Department of Justice
(hereinafter DOJ) Amicus Brief in Tennessee v. Lane. Supra, dated
November 3, 2003. 
3.
Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice [designated as Exhibit
No.2] is a true and correct copy of the DOJ Settlement Agreement
with the Massachusetts State Court system, dated January 8, 2004.
4.
Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice [designated as Exhibit
No.3] is a true and correct copy of the San Diego Superior Court’s
Notice for Trial Jury Service served by USPS, postmarked July 23,
2004.
3
   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
5.
Attached to this Request for Judicial Notice [designated as Exhibit
No.4] is a true and correct copy of the DOJ Settlement Agreement
with the Philadelphia Court of common Pleas, dated October 23,
1997.
6.
The Internet addresses of the U.S. Department of Justice
documents are:
Brief:
Brief Appendix:
Massachusetts Agreement:
Philadelphia Agreement:
7.
Appellees’ attorney is easily able to provide authentication for
Exhibit No. 3 from named parties San Diego Superior Court and
Supervising Judge Joan P. Weber. 
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States
of America and of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and
4
   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
correct, and that this declaration was executed in Encinitas, California on
August 11th, 2004.
Jacquelyn Finney
Signature
        (Type)
Jacquelyn Finney
Appellant, Pro Se
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Judicially noticeable matters, not otherwise included in the record on 
appeal (initially or through supplementation) may, nonetheless, be
considered 
by the appellate court.  Even though neither filed with – nor considered by –
the 
district court, certain matters may be judicially noticed by appellant court
(matters of common knowledge, of public record, which are readily
verifiable).
Broadly, appellate courts have the same power as trial courts to take
judicial notice of a matter properly subject to such notice.  [See FRE Rule
201; Papai v. Harbor Tug & Barge Col, 67 F.3d 203, 207, fn. 5 (9th Cir.
1995); rev’d on other grounds, 520 U.S. 548, 117 S. Ct. 1535 (1997)].
5
   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
As with evidence generally, the matter to be judicially noticed must be
relevant to the issues in the case.  [FRE Rule 402; Vallot v. Central Guld
Lines, Inc. (5th Cir. 1981) 641 F.2d 347, 350 (per curiam)].
RELEVANCE
Appellant has presented substantial, undisputed evidence of a pattern
of historic, pervasive disability discrimination, deliberate indifference,
discriminatory animus and retaliation by the California court system which
has violated her constitutional rights to access and petition stte courts.  This
evidence is consistent with and reflects the historical pattern of systemic,
pervasive disability discrimination in violation of the fundamental right to
access state courts, a pro se attorney, litigant, witness and juror that was
confirmed by the DOJ and the U.S. Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Lane,
supra.
The California court system has intentionally adopted policies,
procedures and practices, purportedly for the purpose of compliance with the
requirements of ADA Title II.  However, these policies, procedures and
practices have permitted court entities, judges and administrators to violate
ADA Title II with impunity and immunity, but for enforcement actions
undertaken by the DOJ and private attorneys general.
6
   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
The California court system’s violations of ADA Title II are capable
of repetition and yet have evaded review, but for appellant’s pro se private
attorney general action, which was dismissed with prejudice by the district
court.  Private attorney general enforcement actions are permitted by ADA
Title II and encouraged by the DOJ, which expressly recognizes that its
resources to enforce ADA are limited.
Appellant has the right under ADA Title II to refer her case to the
DOJ.  However, the district court’s order precludes enforcement by DOJ, as
well as
by appellant, in both federal and state courts.
Appellant respectfully requests that this Court take Judicial notice,
pursuant to FRE § 201 of the DOJ Amicus Brief in Tennessee v. Lane,
supra, the DOJ Settlement Agreement with the Massachusetts Court System,
the San Diego Superior Court’s Notice For Trial Jury Service and the DOJ
Settlement Agreement with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and
give these documents due weight in consideration that private attorneys
general are entitled to enforce ADA Title II in the California court system in
issues pending before this Court in this actions.  The issue of jury service
7
   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
will be added to appellant’s amended complaint, if this Court grants leave to
amend.
If neither DOJ nor private attorneys general are able to enforce ADA
Title II, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tennessee v. Lane, supra and ADA
Title II are meaningless and void the Ninth circuit.  The San Diego Superior
Court’s systemic, disability discrimination not only violates her right to
access and petition state courts as a pro se litigant, it also violates her right
to access the court to service as a trial juror.
Respectfully submitted,
DATE: August 11th, 2004
Jacquelyn Finney
Signature
      (Type)
Jacquelyn Finney
Appellant, Pro Se