Thomas v. Lighthouse of Oakland et al

Filing 125

ORDER Regarding 123 Request filed by Randall Thomas. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

RANDALL THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No: 12-15494
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

LIGHTHOUSE OF OAKLAND COUNTY, ET AL,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
ORDER
Mr. Randall Thomas filed “Motion: Request for Reasonable Accommodations and
Hearing for Response.” ECF No. 123. Responsive briefing has been requested from the
Defendants by July 11, 2016 and Plaintiff’s reply brief is due July 18, 2016.
In advance of receiving additional briefs, the Court investigated what its
responsibility is to parties who request accommodation. First and foremost, the Judicial
Conference of the United States adopted a policy requiring all federal courts to provide
reasonable accommodations to participants in court proceedings who have
communication difficulties. This must be done in accordance with the guidelines
developed by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The guidelines were
approved by the Judicial Conference in March, 1996. See Guide to Judiciary Policy,
Vol. 5, Ch. §255, Services to the Hearing Impaired and Others with Communication
Disabilities, http://jnet.ao.dcn/sites/default/files/pdf/Vol_5.pdf.
In particular, courts:

1 

(a) . . . must provide sign language interpreters or other
auxiliary aids and services to participants in federal court
proceedings who are deaf, hearing-impaired or have
communication disabilities and may provide these services
to spectators when the court deems appropriate (JCUS-SEP
95, p. 75). This policy provides for services in addition to
those required by the Court Interpreters Act (28 U.S.C. §
1827).
(b) . . . should honor a participant’s choice of auxiliary aid or
service, unless it can show that another equally effective
means of communication is available, or that use of the
means chosen would result in a fundamental change in the
nature of the court proceeding or an undue financial or
administrative burden.
§255.10
This is what the Court is prepared to do to assist Mr. Thomas:
(1) Options regarding use of a computer:

A. A laptop/desktop can be made available in the courthouse in a public
space accessible to Mr. Thomas.
The computer would be capable of accessing PACER;
The computer would have software that can read PDF documents;
Headphones would be provided.
or,
B. A laptop can be loaned to Mr. Thomas for the duration of his case.
The laptop would have the same capabilities, as the public laptop.
However, Mr. Thomas would have to use his own internet connection or a
publicly available internet connection at a library or another location such
as a coffee shop which offers free WiFi.
For either option, Mr. Thomas would be trained by court staff to access and use
PACER and the PDF reader software. These accommodations could be in place by
July 13, 2016.

2 

(1) Options for trial:
The Court is permitted to provide a personal assistant throughout trial who would
provide reading services to Mr. Thomas at no cost to him.
The Court can require the Defendant to give Mr. Thomas trial exhibits to review
before trial.
A laptop as described in (1) above could be made available in or near the
courtroom during trial.
(2) General:
Mr. Thomas can be provided assistance in establishing a PACER account and
given instruction regarding basic navigation, selection of documents and access
to PDF reading software.
Existing case documents can be pre-loaded to a laptop for ease of access and
use of the PDF reading software.
Dave Weaver, the Court Administrator, will contact Michigan Dyslexia Institute,
Inc. to obtain general information regarding providing accommodations for
dyslexia. MDI’s website: http://www.dyslexia.net/MDIFacts.html
Mr. Thomas has one other current case in the Eastern District of Michigan,
Thomas v. Ferndale, City of, et al, No. 16-10811 (E.D. Mich. 2016), assigned to Judge
Tarnow. There is a pending motion for accommodation in that case.
Mr. Thomas also requests a “. . . reader, typist, writer, etc., to assist me in my
endeavors in this courthouse. I need an accommodator [sic] that I can articulate my
thoughts to, and they can write or type my motion or read motions or evidence to me in
correct grammatical grammar in the reading or writing of anything that I bring to this
case. . . .” ECF No. 123, ¶ 2.
In Brock v Hendershott, 840 F. 2d 339, 342 (6th Cir., 1988), the Sixth Circuit
addressed whether pro se defendants were entitled to special treatment to object to the
government’s motion for summary judgment. The defendants failed to respond to a
magistrate’s order that relied on the government’s version of pertinent facts; Defendants
mistakenly thought an earlier challenge they made to a government motion was
3 

sufficient to defeat the government’s more recent motion. Id. at 343. The Court relied
on a Ninth Circuit case to conclude:
. . . [N]o special treatment [is] to be afforded ordinary civil litigants who proceed
pro se. The court [reaches] this conclusion out of a sense of fairness to other
parties who choose counsel and must bear the risk of their attorney’s mistakes .
. . [w]hen a person such as either defendant in this case chooses to represent
himself he should expect no special treatment which prefers him over others who
are represented by attorneys. . . . [t]he application of the law must be equal, even
for those who have no attorney.
Id. (citing Wolfel v United States, 711 F.2d 66, 67 (6th Cir. 1983)). See also, Jacobsen
v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1986).
While Brock can be distinguished because defendants there never sought
representation, the guiding principle to be gleaned from it and other pertinent cases is
that only prisoners who sometimes have no choice but to proceed without counsel,
should be afforded some special treatment. Mr. Thomas filed this case on his own, had
pro bono counsel appointed to represent him who withdrew, and then hired his own
lawyers, who also withdrew because of a breakdown in their relationship with Mr.
Thomas. According to these attorneys, only a small part of that breakdown was that Mr.
Thomas demanded that they read all court filings to him. Nonetheless, without the
benefit of counsel and with his disability, Mr. Thomas continues to respond to court
filings and file papers on his own. The Court also notes that Mr. Thomas’ complete
inability to read has only come to the attention of the Court in the last few months. This
case was filed in 2012. The Court declines to prefer Mr. Thomas over other litigants.
Brock, 840 F.2d at 343.
The Court is not prepared to honor this final request made by Mr. Thomas, and
finds that its obligation to accommodate Mr. Thomas in court proceedings does not
extend to the provision of someone to prepare or type his motions for filing.

4 

Finally, the Court requested information from Mr. Thomas on July 1, 2016 to
assist it in its duty to accommodate him. To date, Mr. Thomas has not provided the
requested information. The Court’s Case Manager, Carol Pinegar, left the following
message for Mr. Thomas:
This message is for Randall Thomas. This is Carol from Judge Roberts'
chambers. Please give me a call at 313-234-5230. Judge Roberts is working on
your motion for an accommodation and she has some questions. We need to
know what other cases you have pending in other courts and what
accommodations you have received and a couple other questions. So, please
give me a call. Thank you.
The Court needs to hear from Mr. Thomas immediately to know what Option he
wants to exercise to review documents now.
The Court may supplement this Order after briefing is completed.
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: 7/6/16July 6, 2016
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of record
and Randall Thomas by electronic means or U.S.
Mail on July 6, 2016.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

5