Print document
 1 of 1 
 
A REPRESENTATIVE COPY OF THE FILING
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                      
      Pages
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ………………………….……………
iv
I.  INTRODUCTION ………………………………………….……
1
II. THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE STATUTES 
     PERMITTING DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IS WELL
     SETTLED & ABSTENTION CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED …..….
2
A.
The California Court System Has Acted Under Color of
State Law to Violate the U.S. Constitution & ADA Title II ….
2
B.
The California Court System’s Failure to Fund ADA
Compliance Is Discriminatory ……………………………….
3
III. SYSTEMIC DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION BY THE
      CALIFORNIA COURT SYSTEM HAS EVADED REVIEW ….
4
      A.  The District Court Ignored the Plain Law of the Ninth Circuit ...
4
B.  The Supreme Court Confirmed What Was Already Law in
  the Ninth Circuit ……………………………………………...
5
        C.   CRC 989.3 is a Trap for the Unwary Disabled ………………
6
IV. THE CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL MACHINERY CANNOT
      PERFORM ITS IMPARTIAL TASK OF ADJUDGING CASES …
8
      A.  The Court System’s Failure to Fund ADA Title II Compliance is
Direct Evidence of Deliberate Indifference to Disability
Discrimination ………………………………………………….
8
       B.  Officers of the California Court Have Obstructed Justice ……..
9
V.
THIS COURT MUST ERADICATE THE CALIFORNIA COURT’S
SYSTEMIC COERCION & RETALIATION AGAINST THE
DISABLED …………………………………………………………
10
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
Table of Contents – continued
Page
A.
The District Court’s Ruling Bars As-Applied ADA Title II  
Retaliation Suits ……………………………………………...   10
1.  Ninth Circuit law permits prisoners to pursue retaliation
claims in federal court …………………………………..
  10
2.  Governmental retaliation against citizen whistleblowers        
is unconstitutional ………………………………………
12
B.
The District Court’s Ruling Ignored ADA Title II’s Prohibition  
Against Coercion and Retaliation ……………………………..
12
         C.  The California Court System’s Retaliation Reflects Its Intent
               to Obstruct Justice ……………………………………………. 13
VI. THIS COURT MUST RESOLVE THE INHERENT TENSION
AMONG ADA TITLE II, THE DOCTRINES OF JUDICIAL/  
QUASI- JUDICIAL IMMUNITY & THE ROOKER-FELDMAN
DOCTRINE ……………………………………………………….
16
A.  The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Disfavors Civil Rights …….…
16
1.  The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine penalizes plaintiffs who  
      use available state administrative remedies…………...…..
17
2.
As-applied by the California court system, the Rooker-
Feldman Doctrine is a tactic to wrongly dismiss
constitutional challenges to California rules of court ……..
18
   B.  CRC 989.3 is a Non-Adversarial, Purely Administrative
Process that As-Applied Undercuts ADA Title II ………..…
20
VII. THE CALIFORNIA COURT SYSTEM’S HISTORIC PATTERN          
        OF PERVASIVE DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN COURT 
        PROGRAMS, SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES HAS EVADED 
        REVIEW …………………………………………………………..
21
        A.  The District Court Ignored the Plain Law of the Ninth Circuit .. 21
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
Table of Contents – continued
Page
   B.  The California Court System’s Historic Pattern of Pervasive
Disability Discrimination is Apparent from the Facts ……..
27
                1.  Appellees’ statement of facts is a post hoc rationalization.
27
2.
The totality of the judges and court executives actions show                           
a pattern of pervasive disability discrimination, deliberate
indifference, discriminatory animus and retaliation in 
     violation of ADA Title II under the aegis of CRC 989.3 …
30
3.
Appellant’s state lawsuit refiling is contingent upon 
obtaining meaningful relief from pervasive disability   
discrimination ……………………………………………..
31
VIII. CONCLUSION …………………………………………………..
32
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE …………………………………..
34
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ……………………………….……….
35
  ADDENDUM
       Professor Chris Sanchirico, “Evidence Tampering,”
         Duke Law Journal, February, 2004, Volume 53, No. 4