Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
JAMES B. STEGEMAN,
Plaintiff/Appellant APPEAL NO. 08-16174-CC
DISTRICT COURT NO. 1:08-CV-1971
It has been long realized by many Pro Se litigants that they are looked upon
with bias/prejudice by not only attorneys, but Judges as well. Many times, Pro Se
litigants have been subjected to harsher, stricter standards than attorneys; the
“Motion is Denied”.
Summary Judgment. There had been nothing filed in Superior Court since June
2008. It is evident from the response of denial that Appellees too believe, as
Petitioner has stated, that the only way Petitioner in this matter can enforce and
Past case precedent and the application of the doctrine of stare decisis is
ruling on Pro Se litigant’s filings, the principles of stare decisis and past case
precedent are often ignored; Courts refuse to liberally construe Pro Se pleadings,
and fail to hold to less stringent standards; the judicial system fails resulting in
manifest injustice and the Courts find in favor of the opposition, who can afford
injustice would otherwise result” U. S. v. Sanchez, 88 F.3d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
1
(Citations omitted.) Etkind v. Suarez, 271 Ga. 352, 357 (5) (519 SE2d 210) (1999).
2
"Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters
it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than
that it be settled right" (Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285
U.S. 393, 52 S. Ct. 443, 76 L. Ed. 815 [1932]).
Title 28 U.S.C. §1915(d) provides that in forma pauperis cases, "[t]he court
may request an attorney to represent any such person unable to employ counsel. . ."
479 F.2d 1044 (CA5 1973) it was held: "[I]f a civil action brought by an indigent
acting pro se, including prison inmates, has merit … then counsel should be
appointed to properly present the claim." In Bounds v. Smith, et., al., 97 S. Ct.
1491, 430 U.S. 817 (U.S. 04/27/1977), 52 L. Ed. 2d 72, (1977) [ 430 U.S. Page
826] it was stated: “If a lawyer must perform such preliminary research, it is no
less vital for a pro se prisoner. Indeed, despite the ‘less stringent standards’ by
which a pro se pleading is judged”, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
The Fifth Amendment says, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment says, "no state
shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"Both the Georgia and United States Constitutions prohibit the state from
depriving `any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.'
3
United States Const., amend. XIV, sec. 1; see also Ga. Const., [Art. I, Sec. I, Par. I].
stated in Citizens & Contractors. Bank v. Maddox, *fn2 "[t]he benefit of notice and
a hearing before judgment is not a matter of grace, but is one of right." "A party's
cause of action is a property interest that cannot be denied without due process.
(Cit.)" In RE Law Suits, 235 Ga.App. 551, 510 S.E.2d 91 (Ga.App. 12/02/1998).
Wilhelm H. Joseph Jr.3: Justice system should be equal for rich and poor
the assistance of competent counsel, which is usually beyond the financial capacity
of … Americans in general.”
critical civil cases, a judge on Maryland’s highest court wrote, “[I]t is my belief
that there is no judge on this Court that believes in his or her heart or mind that
justice is equal between the poor and the rich — even in the tradition-hallowed
It would be a great day when we get past the fear expressed in the 2001 State
2
O.C.G.A. §9-15-2 (d)
3
Wilhelm H. Joseph Jr. has served as executive director of the Legal Aid Bureau of Maryland
since 1996. Previously he was director of the legal support unit at Legal Services for New York
City. A law graduate of the University of Mississippi and Harvard’s JFK School of Government,
Joseph is the immediate past chair of the Legal Services Project Committee of the American Bar
Association Section of Litigation.
4
George: “If the motto ‘and justice for all’ becomes ‘and justice for those who can
“The gap between civil legal needs and available services has been well
poor people could not obtain legal help for their serious legal problems. Many
“Although lay litigants are no better able to navigate the legal system in civil
cases than in criminal ones, the simple logic of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
335 (1963), has yet to be applied in the civil arena. In Gideon, the U.S. Supreme
Court required that counsel be appointed for criminal defendants because “the right
to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the
right to be heard by counsel.” Id. at 344–45. Eighteen years later, the Supreme
that federal due process does at times require appointment of counsel in civil
5
CONCLUSION
able to properly present his case to this Appellate Court. The Appellees all have
excellent representation. The Supreme Court has recognized that at times in civil
cases, the only way for an Appellant to be afforded proper protection of one’s
Appellant prays this Court will reconsider it’s denial, and appoint legal
counsel.
By: ___________________________
James B. Stegeman, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd.
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(404) 300-9782
counsel in civil cases in Washington State. Debra Gardner serves as legal director of the Public
Justice Center and coordinates the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel. To find out
more about the national coalition, contact Debra at gardnerd@publicjustice.org.
6
James B. Stegeman, et.,al., vs. Superior Court, et.,al., Appeal No. 08-16174-C
Pursuant to and in compliance with The U.S. Court of Appeals For The Eleventh
Circuit Rule 26.1-1, General Order 34 amending Eleventh Circuit Rules 26.1-2 and
Appeal No. 08-16174-C, James B. Stegeman, et.,al., vs. Superior Court, et.,al.,
7
CERTIFICATION
and my obligations to abide by 11th Cir. R. 26.1-2 and 11th Cir. R. 26.1-3
By: ____________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN,
Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(404) 300-9782
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
8
James B. Stegeman vs. Superior Court, et., al., Appeal No. 08-16174-C
I Certify that I have this 29th day of January, 2009 served a true and correct copy of
the foregoing Motion For Reconsideration of Appellant’s Motion For
Appointment of Counsel 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:
_______________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(404) 300-9782