Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

JAMES B. STEGEMAN, APPELLANT/PETITIONER vs. FRANK J. LILLIG, III, as EXECUTOR\ADMINISTRATOR/ PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE of ESTATE OF GENEVA S. CAFFREY, ESTATE No. 2002-1161 CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.: 05-CV-13909-09 IN RE: VOID JUDGMENT AT LAW IN RE: APPEAL FROM PROBATE COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

JUDICIAL NOTICE PRO SE STANDARD OF REVIEW COMES NOW James B. Stegeman Appellant/Petition in the above listed matter and files his Judicial Notice for Pro Standard of Review: Appellant/Petitioner in the case at a bar is proceeding pro se, this Court has a higher standard when faced with review of his pleadings, especially when Ruling on a motion to dismiss, White v. Bloom F.2d 2761 clearly makes this point: A court faced with a motion to dismiss a pro se complaint must read the complaints allegations expansively, Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, S. Ct. 594, 596, 60 L.Ed. 2d 652 (1972), and take them as true for purposes of deciding whether they state a claim. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322, 92 S. Ct. 1079, 1081, 31 L. Ed. 2d 263 (1972). Pro Se litigants court submissions are to be liberally construed and held to less stringent standards than those submitted by lawyers. If the court can reasonably read the submissions, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of
1

It is well established that Georgias Civil Practice Act and The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are almost identical in every instance; time and again it has also been shown that because the Civil Practice Act and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are almost identical that most of the time, federal caselaw is acceptable to use in place of state caselaw.

legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigants unfamiliarity with rule requirements. See Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 102 S. Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); McDowell v. Delaware State Police, 88 F.3d 188, 189 (3rd Cir. 1996); United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3rd Cir. 1992) holding pro se petition cannot be held to same standard as pleadings drafted by attorneys; Then v. I.N.S., 58 F. Supp. 2d 422, 429 (D.N.J. 1999). Jenkins v. Blue Moon Cycle, Inc., 627 S.E.2d 440, 277 Ga.App. 733 (Ga.App. 02/23/2006) at [9] held: The general rule is that pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than pleadings that are drafted by lawyers (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Hickey v. Kostas Chiropractic Clinics, P.A., 259 Ga. App. 222, 223 (576 SE2d 614) (2003). See also: Cotton v. Bank South, N. A., 212 Ga. App. 1, 3 (1) (440 SE2d 704) (1994); Thompson v. Long, 201 Ga. App. 480, 481 (1) (411 S.E.2d 322) The courts provide pro se parties wide latitude when construing their pleadings and papers. When interpreting pro se papers, the Court should use common sense to determine what relief the party desires. S.E.C. v. Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992). Also see, United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 (3rd Cir. 1999) Court has a special obligation to construe pro se litigants pleadings liberally Polling v. Hovnanian Enterprises, 99 F. Supp. 2d 502, 506-07 (D.N.J. 2000). Davlos v. Perdue, 449 S.E.2d 861, 215 Ga. App. 27(1994) At [19]: "all rules and regulations relating to pleading, practice, and procedure shall be liberally construed so as to administer Justice." OCGA 15-10-44 (b). "Pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than pleadings that are drafted by lawyers." Thompson v. Long, 201 Ga. App. 480, 481 (1) (411 S.E.2d 322). 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
Judicial Notice - 2 - of 4

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). Thus, when a court entertains to dismiss a pro se action before it, if there is any possible theory that would entitle the Appellant/Petitioner to relief, even one the Appellant/Petitioner hasnt thought of, the court must not dismiss the case. Thompson v. Long, (201 Ga. App. 480) (411 SE2d 322) (1991): OCGA 9-11-8 (f) requires that " [a] 11 pleadings . . . be so construed as to do substantial justice." See Glaser v. Meek, 258 Ga. 468 (3) (369 SE2d 912) (1988). This court has repeatedly held that the spirit and intent of the Civil Practice Act require that pleadings are to be liberally construed in favor of the pleader. Mills v. Bing, 181 Ga. App. 475, 476 (352 SE2d 798) (1987); Tahamtan v. Dixie Ornamental Iron Co., 143 Ga. App. 561 (239 SE2d 217) (1977). Pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than pleadings that are drafted by lawyers. Evans v. City of Atlanta, 189 Ga. App. 566, 567 (377 SE2d 31) (1988); see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U. S. 519 (92 SC 594, 30 LE2d 652) (1972), Dillingham v. Doctors Clinic, 236 Ga. 302 (223 SE2d 625) (1976). Appellant/Petitioner hereby invokes the power and protections of Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519 and Platsky v. CIA, 953 F.2d 25, placing emphasis on where the cases that speak to the fact that In Propria Persona or Pro Se litigants may not be held to the same strict standards as bar-authorized lawyers and that In Propria Persona or Pro Se litigants have the right to submit evidence of their claims to the courts for adjudication and that where courts dismiss, the Court must provide curative instructions as to how to repair the In Propria Persona or Pro Se litigants paperwork and leave or permission for time to re-file. [Signature on following page]

Judicial Notice - 3 - of 4

Respectfully submitted, this 31st day of December, 2008

By: _____________________________ JAMES B. MR. STEGEMAN, Pro Se 821 Sheppard Rd. Stone Mountain, GA 30083 (770) 879-8737

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby Certify that I have this 31st day of December, 2008 filed upon Frank J. Lillig, III Administrator of the Estate of Geneva S. Caffrey at his last known address, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Judicial Notice by causing same to be deposited with the United States Postal Service, with proper postage affixed thereto as follows:

Frank J. Lillig, III

By: _____________________________ JAMES B. MR. STEGEMAN, Pro Se 821 Sheppard Rd. Stone Mountain, GA 30083 (770) 879-8737

Judicial Notice - 4 - of 4