Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pro Se Judicial Notice
Pro Se Judicial Notice
STATE OF GEORGIA
G F;
Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION
v
FILE NO: 2009V-1442H
BANK OF AMERICA MORTGAGE;
Defendants
The Courts have long held that Pro Se pleadings are to be read liberally and if
there is relief available that they have failed to request, the Courts should be lenient
Moore v. Florida, 703 F.2d 516 (11th Cir. 1983) Reversed and Remanded
which held:
In Grayden v. Rhodes, 345 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 09/17/2003) the Court held:
“The law does not entertain the legal fiction that every individual has achieved a state
of legal omniscience; … there is no presumption that all of the citizens actually know
all of the law all of the time. Practically speaking, citizens must educate themselves
about the law” See West Covina, 525 U.S. at 241, 119 S. Ct. at 682 (noting that an
individual "can turn to these public sources to learn about the remedial procedures
available to him"); id. at 242, 119 S. Ct. at 682 (noting that a citizen "could not
his interests"); United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 108, 105 S. Ct. 1785, 1799-1800
(1985)”
Mr. F, representing himself, invokes the doctrine of staire decisis and the
United States Supreme Court‟s Rulings and Rulings of other Appellate and Civil
Courts concerning Pro Se pleadings requests this Honorable Court take Judicial
Notice:
-2-
same high standards of perfection as lawyers.” Jenkins v.
McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R.
Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233
"Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and
just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not
raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper
pleading is important, but its importance consists in its
effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938)
"Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil
rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings
without regard to technicalities." Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway,
151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals
“Pro Se parties have the right to Appeal, and submit their briefs on
appeal even though they may be inartfully drawn”, see Vega v.
Johnson, 149 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1998). “Courts will go to
particular pains to protect pro se litigants consequences of technical
errors if injustice would otherwise result.” U. S. v. Sanchez, 88
F.3d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
Moreover, “the court is under a duty to examine the complaint to
determine if the allegations provide for relief on any possible
theory.” Bonner v. Circuit Court of St. Louis, 526 F.2d 1331, 1334
(8th Cir. 1975) quoting Bramlet v. Wilson, 495 F.2d 714, 716 (8th
Cir. 1971).
The history of bias and prejudice against pro se litigants within the
Courts is long. Stephen Elias who had been with Nolo Press, the
nation‟s leading publisher of self-help law books, back in 1997, in
an article Bias Against Pro Per Litigants… stated:
“From the moment they first contact the court system, most people
who want to represent themselves, without a lawyer, encounter
tremendous resistance. Within the closed universe of the courts,
this bias is as pernicious as that based on race, ethnic origins or
sex.” “People who cannot afford a lawyer are a rebuke to the
organized bar‟s monopoly…, because that monopoly is morally—if
not legally—justified…the ABA has admitted that 100 million
Americans can‟t afford lawyers.”
"... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important
rights under the constitution and laws." Elmore v. McCammon
(1986) 640 F. Supp. 905
-3-
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff is invoking His Rights and Immunities guaranteed him by both the
State of Georgia Constitution and The Constitution of The United States of America,
and Moves the Court to take Judicial Notice of staire decisis when ruling on Plaintiff‟s
pro se pleadings.
By: ______________________________
GF
1111 XXXX
Fayetteville, Georgia 30215
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, G F, Certify that I have this 23rd day of October, 2009 served the foregoing
Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice upon the Defendants, through their attorney on
file, by causing a true and correct copy to be deposited with USPS first class mail,
proper postage affixed and addressed as follows:
_______________________________
GF
1111 XXXX
Fayetteville, Georgia 30215
-4-