Anda di halaman 1dari 4



G F;
FILE NO: 2009V-1442H


COMES NOW, Plaintiff and files Request for Judicial Notice.

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

and the Pro Se litigant should be afforded that available relief.

Moore v. Florida, 703 F.2d 516 (11th Cir. 1983) Reversed and Remanded

which held:

“[26] „a court should be particularly careful to ensure proper notice

to a pro se litigant.‟ Herron v. Beck, 693 F.2d at 127. See also
Barker v. Norman, 651 F.2d 1107, 1129 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding
district court abused its discretion…failing to afford to a pro se
civil rights litigant…”
“[37] The pleadings of pro se litigants…subject to less stringent
rules. „…, however inartfully drafted, must be held to less rigorous
standards than…by lawyers.‟ Woodall v. Foti, 651 F.2d 268, 271
(5th Cir. 1981); see Richardson v. Fleming, 651 F.2d 366, 368 (5th
Cir. 1981).”

F.D.I.C. v. Hillcrest Assoc., 66 F.3d 566 (2d Cir. 1995) “reiterating

general rule and outlining exception for pro se litigants…”
“We hold pro se pleadings to a less stringent standard than
pleadings drafted by attorneys and construe them liberally.”
Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir.
We give a "liberal" reading to pro se filings because those litigants
lack formal legal training. See GJR Invs., 132 F.3d at 1369
("Courts do and should show a leniency to pro se litigants not
enjoyed by those with the benefit of a legal education.").

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

reasonably be expected to educate himself about the procedures available to protect

his interests"); United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 108, 105 S. Ct. 1785, 1799-1800


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


“Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to

technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the

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


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.

Respectfully submitted, this 23rd day of October, 2009

By: ______________________________
1111 XXXX
Fayetteville, Georgia 30215

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:

Law office of Johnson and Freeman LLC,

1587 Northeast Expressway,
Atlanta, GA 30329

1111 XXXX
Fayetteville, Georgia 30215