---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 23:26:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ross E Mitchell <rem@jetlag.com>
I am a pro se defendant involved in a civil action in Massachusetts
Superior Court.
Earlier this year I was denied remote access to the Court's case docketing
system, known as SCRIB (Superior Court Remote Inquiry for the Bar). Access
is routinely provided to any attorney requesting such access. In addition,
there is no charge to attorney subscribers to the system. The system
itself provides information of a similar nature to PACER, along with the
Court's calendar.
I filed a Section 1983 Action against the Chief Justice of the
Massachusetts Superior Courts, Robert A. Mulligan, in U.S. District Court
in Boston. A copy of the Complaint follows this note.
My Action was quickly dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The complaint, as well as
my motions for temporary injunction, reconsideration of the dismissal, and
for leave to amend were all denied without the opportunity for oral
argument and without an opinion having been written. The judge in the case
is Richard G. Stearns.
The argument advanced by the Attorney General's Office (which represented
the judge) in their Motion to Dismiss was that the denial of remote access
was a "de minimus" burden, that the court had a rational basis for limiting
access to attorneys (concern about system overload and the desire to permit
coordination of calendars of attorneys with "heavy caseloads" with the
Court's) and that access to the courts need only be "reasonable." This
"reasonable access" argument is based on rulings that prisoners' rights of
access to law libraries and other facilities can be restricted as long as a
"reasonable opportunity to be heard" is provided.
Clearly I see matters differently and I hope the readers of this list agree
that this denial of equal access represents a clear violation of my
constitutional rights under the fourteenth and, quite possibly, first
amendments.
If Judge Stearn's ruling is upheld, this will set a dangerous precedent for
the future of equal access to court information. I'm looking for people
who would be willing to assist with this appeal in a number of ways,
including:
1) filing amicus briefs;
2) obtaining publicity;
3) spreading the word of this appeal, and;
4) providing suggestions and advice through this group.
After reading the Complaint, if you would like further information,
including copies of the other pleadings and the Pacer record, please let me
know. I can be reached at rem@jetlag.com or at the address listed at the
end of the Complaint.
Thanks very much in advance.
Ross Mitchell
------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
________________________________
)
ROSS E. MITCHELL, )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) Civil Action No. 97-10633RGS
ROBERT A. MULLIGAN, )
in his official capacity as )
Chief Justice of the Superior )
Court of Massachusetts )
)
Defendant. )
________________________________)
COMPLAINT
1.) This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief relating to
defendant's actions in denying plaintiff remote dial-up access to
Massachusetts Superior Court records where said records are available by
dial-up to any attorney requesting such access. This denial constitutes a
violation of plaintiff's civil rights by, inter alia, impeding his right of
due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
Parties
2.) Plaintiff, Ross E. Mitchell, is a resident of Newton,
Massachusetts, and a citizen of the United States.
3.) Defendant, Robert A. Mulligan, is the Chief Justice of the Superior
Court of Massachusetts, with a principal place of employment in Boston,
Massachusetts, and is a citizen of the United States.
Jurisdiction
4.) This court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Facts
5.) Plaintiff is a pro se litigant in a civil action in the Middlesex
Superior Court in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
6.) In the October 21, 1996 issue of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, an
article appeared which described the availability of an on-line court
information system known alternatively as SCRIB (Superior Court Remote
Inquiry for the Bar) and ForeCourt. A copy of this article is attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
7.) The SCRIB system provides the capability for any user to read and
download docket information, the court's calendar, scheduled appearances
and other information, and to search the system's database by docket number
or party name. Dial-up access to the SCRIB system is offered at no charge
to attorney subscribers.
8.) On November 10, 1996, plaintiff requested dial-up access to the
system by faxing a letter to Mr. Peter Nylin, the Superior Court official
in charge of validating new users. A copy of this letter is attached
hereto as Exhibit B.
9.) After several weeks without a response, plaintiff contacted Mr.
Nylin, who informed him that dial-up access to the system was only
available to attorneys. He further advised plaintiff that this was by
order of the defendant, Judge Mulligan, as Chief Justice of the Superior
Court.
10.) At Mr. Nylin's suggestion, in mid-February plaintiff next contacted
Mr. James Klein, Administrator of the Superior Court. In a telephone
conversation, Mr. Klein confirmed that dial-up access to the system was
only available to attorneys and that pro se litigants were required to use
the terminals provided at the courthouse. He suggested that plaintiff
should write to the defendant if he wished to pursue the matter further.
11.) On February 22, 1997, plaintiff wrote the defendant to request that
the policy of denying dial-up access to non-attorneys be changed and that
the plaintiff be granted immediate access to the system. Plaintiff made
numerous arguments as to why access was needed, including his need to check
his case's status, to determine when the court would be hearing cases
analogous to his own so that he might attend such hearings, and to research
other case dockets. A copy of plaintiff's letter is attached hereto as
Exhibit C.
12.) Despite plaintiff's arguments, on March 17, 1997, defendant
responded to plaintiff by denying his request for dial-up access to the
system. A copy of defendant's letter is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
13.) Plaintiff contends that, by denying him the opportunity to access
this valuable information in the same manner and with the same ease as is
offered to attorneys in the Commonwealth, defendant has violated
plaintiff's civil rights, including, but not limited to, his right of due
process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to:
I. Declare that defendant's denial of equal access to information
systems to all persons with business before the Superior Court of
Massachusetts violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
II. Compel defendant to provide plaintiff with dial-up access to the
SCRIB system on an equal basis with attorney subscribers.
III. Award plaintiff his costs in bringing this Action.
IV. Award such further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted
by Ross E. Mitchell,
Plaintiff pro se:
_________________________________
Ross E. Mitchell
4 Allston Street
West Newton, MA 02165
Telephone: (617) 965-7010
Telecopier: (617) 630-0140
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:49:35 PST