[nfbmi-talk] an important case for blind folks

[joe harcz Comcast]

Colleagues,

This case is important not so much in its final disposition, but rather in the fact that both courts granted reasonable accommodations to a blind person.

Such accommodations to state courts and other state proceedings such as Administrative Law Judge proceedings are required to make reasonable accommodations under Title II of the ADA. Title II covers all entities of state and local government including administrative law proceedings.

Not only is this transportation barrier to be adressed, but any participant in legal proceedings who is blind has the right to information related to proceedings in the most effective format for him or her (ADA, Title II, subpart e, communications).

Now, this all begs the question of Mr. ADA, Patrick Cannon as to whether accommodations were granted related to all sorts of proceedings including ALJ proceedings and whether or not he has exercised his responsabilities set forth in the executive order making him state ADA coordinator which in part requires that he offer technical assistence to ensure that all state entities including state courts and administrative law proceedings comply with all aspects of the ADA. Moreover, Cannon was a member of the Unitied States Access Board "Courthouse Advisory Committee" which went into more physical access issues with the courts.

Fundamentally a denial of access to legal proceedings through either physical access constraints, failure to remit accessable information, or denial of other reasonable accommodations is a denial of due process and equal protection under the law and a deprivation of basic Constitutionally guaranteed rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and others for that matter.

Make no mistake these are fundamental deprivations of civil and Constitutional rights here.

Sincerely,

Joe Harcz

Attachment:
http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100823742

IN RE MARKIN v. SCHMIDT

 

In Re JOSHUA JEREMY MARKIN, Debtor,

v.

JAMES EDWARD SCHMIDT, Appellant.

 

Case No. 10-11325.

 

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

 

August 23, 2010.

 

ORDER

 

LULIAN ABELE COOK Jr., District Judge.

 

On September 14, 2009, Joshua Jeremy Markin filed an involuntary petition for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.

On April 2, 2010, one of Markin's listed creditors, the pro se appellant in this case, James Edward Schmidt, filed a notice of appeal from an order issued

by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.[

1 ]

 In addition to this pleading, Schmidt also filed a motion for accommodations. Neither Markin nor any other creditor in this case has submitted any responsive

briefs to Schmidt's motions. The Court will address these two requests below.

 

I.

 

The Court will first address Schmidt's motion for accommodations. In this pleading, Schmidt states that he is legally blind and that while another person

had been transporting him to hearings and creditors meetings in the bankruptcy proceedings, this person has become ill and is no longer able to assist

him. As such, Schmidt requests that any hearings convened by the Court in this matter be conducted via telephone, so that he is able to participate. He

also asserts that he has secured this relief from the Bankruptcy Court, which has agreed to conduct its formal proceedings with Schmidt via teleconference.

 

Based on the representations made by Schmidt in his motion, the Court concludes that his request for accommodations is justified. Therefore, any hearings

and/or conferences convened by the Court will be conducted through a teleconference.

 

II.

 

The Court now turns to the Schmidt's notice of appeal. Schmidt submitted this document for the purpose of appealing an order entered by the Bankruptcy Court

on November 10, 2009 and which set aside a previous order, thereby reinstating the waiver of filing fees for Schmidt. Inasmuch as Schmidt's notice of appeal

also seeks permission from the Court to institute an appeal, the Court will also construe his notice as a request for leave to file an appeal.

 

Congress has decreed that federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final judgments, orders, and decrees entered by bankruptcy judges.

28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). An order is final if it "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." In

re Pitcher, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52689 at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 28, 2010) (citations omitted). Interlocutory orders (i.e., orders that are not final) issued

by bankruptcy judges may be appealed only where the district court grants leave to appeal — a decision wholly within its discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3);

Id. at *2. However, litigants have a period of fourteen days from the date of the entry of the interlocutory order to file a motion with the district court

seeking leave to appeal. Id. (citing Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8003(c)).

 

Here, the order issued by the Bankruptcy Court neither (1) involves the merits of the bankruptcy proceeding nor (2) ends the litigation. Thus, the Court

concludes, and Schmidt appears to concede, that this is an interlocutory order which is not appealable as of right. Although Schmidt has filed a request

for leave to appeal the aforementioned order of the Bankruptcy Court, he has not done so in a timely fashion. The notice of appeal, filed in April of this

year, was submitted nearly five months after the interlocutory order that Schmidt seeks relief from. Therefore, without addressing the merits, if any,

of Schmidt's request, the Court must, and does, deny his motion seeking leave to appeal.

 

III.

 

Accordingly, the Court (1) grants Schmidt's motion for accommodations and (2) denies his request for leave to appeal. In addition, because this lawsuit

was commenced for the purpose of hearing this bankruptcy appeal and the Court has determined that an interlocutory appeal is inappropriate at this time,

this case is hereby closed.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

This copy provided by Leagle, Inc.

 

Terms of Use