!="Ii ~n-::• -i ci:n •1 h 14:41 'j<'"u···.rtDp 1 -i....i..·1....'°1' ! _r::i .l.t..i ..:. · .LI •J f.1 ·...-t'•. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

(Write the District and Division, if any, of 

the court in which the complaint is filed.) 

(Write the full name of each plaintiff who is filing 

this complaint. If the names of all the plaintiffs 

cannot fit in the space above, please write "see 

attached" in the space and attach an additional 

page with the full list of names.) 

-against-

__ MULTNOMAH COUNTY COURTS; STATE 

OF OREGON COURT OF 

APPEALS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

(Write the full name of each defendant who is 

being sued. If the names of all the defendants 

cannot fit in the space above, please write "see 

attached" in the space and attach an additional 

page with the full list of names.) 

Complaint and Request For 

Injunction 

CaseN3 '16 CV- 0 341 SI 

(to be filled in by the Clerk's Office) 

Case 3:16-cv-00341-SI Document 1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 1 of 17
I. The Parties to This Complaint 

A. The Plaintiffs 

Provide the information below for each plaintiff named in this complaint. Attach additional 

pages if needed. 

Name 

Street Address 

Mailing Address 

City and County 

State and Zip Code 

Telephone Number 

E-mail Address 

Name 

Street Address 

Mailing Address 

City and County 

State and Zip Code 

Telephone Number 

E-mail Address 

Asa Carl Swindell 

None 

277 SE 16th Ct 

Troutdale, Multnomah 

Or, 97060 

503-206-1530 

carlfriends@yahoo.com 

Michael Alan Mc Vahle 

None 

277 Se l 61h Ct. 

Troutdale, Multnomah 

OR, 97060 

971-207-9355 

whitewaterpoet@yahoo.com 

B. The Defendant(s) 

Provide the information below for each defendant named in the complaint, 

whether the defendant is an individual, a government agency, an organization, or 

a corporation. For an individual defendant, include the persons job or tittle (if 

known). Attach additional pages if needed. 

2 

Case 3:16-cv-00341-SI Document 1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 2 of 17
Defendant No. 1 

Name 

Job or tittle 

Street Address 

City and County 

State and Zip 

Telephone Number 

Defendant Number 2 

Name 

Job or Tittle 

Street Address 

City and County 

State and Zip 

Telephone Number 

Defendant Number 3 

Name 

Job or Tittle 

Street address 

3 

Multnomah County Courts 

NIA 

1201 S.W. Fourth Ave. 

Portland, Multnomah 

Oregon,97204-1123 

503-988-3957 

State of Oregon Court of Appeals 

NIA 

1163 State Street 

Salem, Marion 

OR, 979301 

(503) 986-5566 

No Additional Defendants at this time 

Case 3:16-cv-00341-SI Document 1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 3 of 17
b. If the Defendant is a corporation 

The Defendant, (name) __________ , is 

incorporated under the laws of the State of (name) 

___________ , and has its principle place of 

business in the State of (name) ___________ . Or is 

incorporated under the laws of (foreign nation) 

___________ , and has its principle place of 

business in (name) __________ _ 

3 The Amount in Controversy 

The amount in controversy is $0 in this action. 

III. Statement of Claim 

We were evicted from our apartment on a no cause eviction even though We are disabled and no 

reasonable accommodation was attempted to keep us within my home and community. We were 

denied the appointment of attorney and never received a competency hearing or a proper answer 

containing the elements required by the Ada and multiple supreme court decisions. We lost that 

hearing in January 2015 (No. 14LT07422). We are now appealing that loss, Swindell v. Lents 

Strategies, LLC, (No. A1587840), and we requested assistance under 

the Americans with Disabilities Act in order to preserve our rights. The Multnomah County 

Courts and the Court of Appeals refused to comply with the ADA and refused to provide us with 

accommodations needed to handle the appeal. We are worried we will lose the appeal and we 

will never again get a place to live again if we do not receive assistance. We are disabled because 

4 

Case 3:16-cv-00341-SI Document 1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 4 of 17
we have cognitive impairments and someone else wrote this for us to file. It is important to us 

that we have someone listen to our case, and we would like a federal judge to issue an injunction 

to require the Oregon courts to follow the disabilities law and to treat people like us fairly. 

B. What date and approximate time did the events giving rise to your claims occur? 

Trial in Multnomah County FED Court, First Appearance January 61

h 2015, 

Judgment rendered January 261h, 2015, currently on appeal. 

Order issued in Oregon State Court of appeals February 2nd, 2016. 

C. What are the facts underlying your claims? 

Both Plaintiffs are cognitively disabled. Mr. Swindell was adjudicated incompetent in 

Multnomah County Circuit Court by Judge Harl Haus. Mr. Swindell has been receiving SSI for 

23 years for cognitive disabilities. Mr. Mc Vahle suffers from Repetitive Concussion syndrome, 

Seizures, Tremors, and Anorexia, among other conditions. The landlords knew or had reason to 

know of our disabilities, but brought an illegal action for possession based on an insufficient 

notice to correct a non-violation of the lease, stating a no cause eviction as the consequence for 

non-compliance with their illegal demand. They then followed with a no Cause eviction served 

and dated within the statutorily required 14 days to correct or dispute. No attempts at reaching a 

reasonable accommodation were made at any time. At trial, we requested, as a reasonable 

accommodation for our cognitive disabilities, the appointment of an attorney to preserve and 

defend our rights. The court declined to either grant our request or to make an answer to us that 

complied with the requirements of the ADA. The judgment was entered against us, and we 

appealed to the Oregon State Court of Appeals, and again requested the appointment of an 

attorney as a reasonable accommodation. Again, there were no substantial attempts to either 

grant our accommodation, offer an alternative, or to provide us with an answer that met the 

5 

Case 3:16-cv-00341-SI Document 1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 5 of 17
requirements of the Ada. 

IV. Irreparable Injury 

Explain why monetary damages at a later time would not adequately compensate you for the 

injuries you are sustaining, or will sustain as a result of the events described above, or why such 

compensation could not be measured. 

We will lose our appeal, and quite frankly, do not have the emotional energy left to continue the 

fight on our own anymore. We will never have our claims fairly heard, our rights will be forever 

lost. Our Damages will never be compensated. 

We are both sick, disabled, and homeless. We may not survive, living on the 

streets, long enough to make it through this appeal, let alone another drawn out 

trial for damages. This is literally do or die for us. Mr. McVahle's seizures are life 

threatening events in and of themselves, and that risk is significantly increased 

when they occur out on the streets. 

V. Relief 

Please order the Multnomah County Circuit Court and/or the Court of Appeals to provide us 

with the assistance of a writer or lawyer to help us with preparing our appeal. 

VI. Certification and Closing 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, by signing below, we certify to the best of our 

knowledge, information, and belief that this complaint: (1) is not being presented for an 

improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of 

litigation; (2) is supported by existing law or by a non frivolous argument for extending, 

modifying, or reversing existing law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if 

6 

Case 3:16-cv-00341-SI Document 1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 6 of 17
specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for 

further investigation or discovery; and ( 4) the complaint otherwise complies with the 

requirements of Rule 11. 

A. For Parties Without an Attorney 

I/We agree to provide the Clerks Office with any changes to my address where any case-related 

papers may be served. I/We understand that our failure to keep a current address on file with the 

Clerks Office may result in the dismissal or our case. 

Date 

Signature 

of Signing: 

of Plaintiff: 

February 

___.._t ..... &_._,,_,,_ 

22"d, 

__ 

2016 

___.._~,.__--~--------

~ 

Printed Name of Plaintiff: Asa Carl Swindell 

Signature of Plaintiff: ~~ 

Printed Name of Plaintiff: Michael Alan Mc Vahle 

7 

Case 3:16-cv-00341-SI Document 1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 7 of 17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

ATTACHMENT TO REQUEST TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

CASE# 

Prayer for Injunctive Relief 

State of Oregon Court of Appeals and Multnomah County Court ordered to appear to defend 

Swindell's accusations that his civil rights have routinely been violated through Systemic 

Judicial deference and Bad-Faith Conciliation and Dilatory Tactics. 

For the Plaintiffs to defend why by their default in not following ADA requirements, they 

should not immediately provide acquire Representation for Swindell. Defendants have refused to 

follow required procedures mandated by law, Swindell request Court order Defendants to appear 

and defend whether the Defendants findings of fact, and their application of those findings of 

fact were to the correct legal standard, were illogical, implausible, or without support in 

inferences that may be drawn from facts in the record. And why Swindell should not be 

appointed as he requested as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA Act. Representation 

by a Qualified Attorney as no other options of reasonable accommodations were offered upon 

repeated requests. 

A stay of all actions until such time collateral issues in this case are resolved and Swindell' s 

legal rights are protected. 

I ASA Swindell ask as a reasonable accommodation to attach this statement to 

clarify some understanding that may be missed and not expressed in US district 

Court injunction application; 

The issues here are substantial. I am cognitive disabled. Under casual 

circumstances I communicate very well. As you can see I am capable, and this is 

confusing, I have above average intelligence as well as Mr. Mc Vhale co plaintiff. 

The thought process is above my understanding. I know I have over 2,000 hours 

invested in this case in search of understanding the issues. I am not a political 

activist I have been a recluse for 21 years. Whoever takes part in this case will 

have a rare look into the mind and experiences of the mentally ill. I am very rare 

that I can still express what I witness and have good memory. I have kept all, 

documentation, correspondence, photos, witness, dates times and places. I 

cooperate follow instructions, and understand arguments. Here in is the catch! I 

cannot formulate them. If you have a list of post a notes in order formulating a 

understanding and remove one, I can't find it, when it is in front of me. I know 

what it is, I just can't connect it. This is frustrating to observe but horrible to live 

1 

Case 3:16-cv-00341-SI Document 1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 8 of 17
with. With a short time to focus I will figure it out but the conversation has moved 

on and I panic. 

The following a sample of what I can do under controlled conditions. 

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS RESPONSE TO AND IS PART OF REQUESTS 

FOR REASONABLE ACCOMADATION WITH THE DEFENDENTS. FILED 11/25/2016. 

Statement of Respondent-Appellant Swindell supporting this request; 

I have been adjudicated incompetent. I recognize that I do have cognitive 

Disabilities. These have been described and substantiated in previous filings. They 

are not questionable. They prevent me from effectively defending my own rights. 

I did not want to go to court. Mr. Mc Vahle convinced me that the eviction being 

performed on us was illegal, and that it would be a simple matter to defend against 

it. I allowed myself to be convinced, and found out we were wrong. Not about the 

law or about whether or not we should be evicted, but about if we could handle it 

without an attorney. 

We requested an attorney from the outset. Simply reading the first 20 pages of my 

testimony and argument in the FED court will demonstrate that, beyond any doubt, 

I was incompetent. I am a conscript. I have been drug in to court to defend my 

rights, while blindfolded (We do not, as pro se litigants, have the same research 

capabilities as a lawyer), and muzzled (I cannot effectively communicate my 

thoughts and arguments). 

I have, so far, been represented by my co-litigant, Mr. Mc Vahle. Initially I believed 

in his ability to conduct our case, despite knowing of his own mental disabilities. I 

no longer, after watching his performance in the original court, have any hope of 

his ability of his assistance to obtain meaningful results in this court, and his 

declining mental, physical and emotional state since becoming homeless, feel that 

he is qualified to represent me. 

I also, after all of my years of experience as a cognitively disabled adult, have no 

wish to even attempt to represent myself. In fact, I no longer wish to make any 

statements without the advice of an attorney, as every time I do I get into trouble of 

some sort. 

Over the years I have felt the burden of the same stigma that this court has placed 

upon me - upon us. The court seems to assume that if we are incompetent, we are 

too stupid to do basic tasks. And that if we can perform those basic tasks, we are 

not legally incompetent and do not require any assistance or protection. So the 

choice before us is to either accept that we are not disabled (a ludicrous notion) or 

that we are stupid. HOW INSULTING! 

2 

Case 3:16-cv-00341-SI Document 1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 9 of 17
Compare me to a person in a wheelchair in a building without an elevator. You are 

telling me that I can drag my paralyzed body up the stairs by strength of arm, and 

you will carry the wheelchair. What you discount is the likelihood that I will slip, 

and injure myself falling down those stairs, or that I will then be late and miss the 

call to my court case and lose my right to be heard. (this actually happened in an 

ADA appealed case) 

I, Asa Swindell am appealing the decision, DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEY dated 11/25/2015 signed by James W. Nass, 

Appellate Commissioner. I no longer and never have accepted Michel Mc Vahle as 

my legal representative. Mr. Mc Vahle was conscripted into the position. He was 

my caretaker at the time of our eviction. He believed FED court is an expedited 

court and with our substantial evidence of all the code violations, primarily no 

exterior lights on a 3 story walk up with all disabled and elderly on 3 floor, for over 

at least 4 months of our tenancy from august 2014 to January 2015, and only one 

exit the front stairs left no lighted fire escape. Raymond Swindell, my 

developmentally disabled Nephew, was abducted in October 2014 due to the 

lighting not working. Ray was found approx. March 2015 and is in protective 

custody to this day. 

I have requested accommodations from the landlord and courts since before trial. 

The mere fact we had a 3 day FED trial should have been a red flag of a substantial 

problem. I was adjudicated mentally incompetent in 1994. I gave you, and is a 

matter of record, a copy of my psychiatric determination; you have my indigent 

filing showing I am on SSDI and have been 21 years. I am 64 years old suffered 

tumors and, traumatic head injuries, mental illness. I am currently homeless I 

simply wish to restate information in my previous request you have on record refer 

to them. 

Mr. Mc Vahle and I are far more ill since our eviction and under extreme living 

conditions. No Doctor, mental health professional, or councilor or observer would 

ever testify I or Mr. Mc Vahle would had been or ever will be able to represent 

myself (ourselves) in a court or many other circumstances. 

You have the transcript. Read it; you won't need to go far. As to my ability to write 

and in my writing communicate as well as I do, I have had a horrible struggle of 

the past 13 months. IfMr. Mc Vahle and I were capable of protecting our rights, 

would we had a 3 day FED trial and not prevailed? Would it take 9 months to do a 

simple FED appeal? Why would not one Attorney accept our case when they did 

not know of our indigent Status? Once the words FED and Civil Rights were 

mentioned the conversation abruptly ended. We tried everywhere for 

representation. 

3 

Case 3:16-cv-00341-SI Document 1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 10 of 17
It is offensive to me that you insist that because I can do some things well, I 

should be able to do other things equally as well. That question has kept me a 

recluse for 21 years and got me in trouble. I have struggled with that question 

and sought an answer far harder than you can imagine. I am frustrated, 

ashamed and disgusted with myself I do not understand how what has 

happened to me, and you press me for an answer I cannot find. 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Savant syndrome 

Savant syndrome is a condition in which a person with a mental disability, such 

as an autism spectrum disorder, demonstrates profound 

and prodigious capacities or abilities far in excess of what would be considered 

normal. 

Another form of savant syndrome is acquired savant syndrome, in which a 

person acquires prodigious capabilities or skills following dementia, a head 

injury or severe blow to the head, or other disturbance No widely accepted 

cognitive theory explains savants' combination of talent and deficit. 

Psychological [edit] 

No widely accepted cognitive theory explains savants' combination of talent and 

deficit. l

151 It has been suggested that individuals with autism are biased towards 

detail-focused processing and that this cognitive style predisposes individuals 

either with or without autism to savant talents.P61 Another hypothesis is that 

savants hyper-systemize, thereby giving an impression of talent. Hypersystemizing is an extreme state in the empathizing-systemizing theory that 

classifies people based on their skills in empathizing with others versus 

systemizing facts about the external world. ll 7l Also, the attention to detail of 

savants is a consequence of enhanced perception or sensory hypersensitivity in 

these unique individuals.[17][18] It has also been confirmed that some savants 

operate by directly accessing low-level, less-processed information that exists in all 

human brains that is not normally available to conscious awareness.l 191 

Neurological [edit] 

Savant syndrome results from damage to the left anterior temporal lobe, an area of 

the brain key in processing sensory input, recognizing objects and forming visual 

memories. [citation neededJ Savant syndrome has been artificially replicated 

using transcranial magnetic stimulation to temporarily disable this area of the 

brain.l201 

Child prodigy 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

In psychology research literature, the term child prodigy is defined as person 

under the age of ten who produces meaningful output in some domain to the level 

4 

Case 3:16-cv-00341-SI Document 1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 11 of 17
of an adult expert performer. [ 1] [2] [3] Child prodigies are rare; and, in some 

domains, there are no child prodigies at all. Prodigiousness in childhood does not 

always predict adult eminence. 

Would anyone come to a conclusion based upon the talents only that persons with 

Savant syndrome or a child prodigy to act as his own Lawyer or a Brain 

surgeon? 

When anyone discovers an answer I can leverage to my benefit, I may find some 

peace. 

I have never been, or would hope to ever be, so offensive to skilled, trained 

educated, experienced professionals who have sacrificed so much to achieve 

accreditation's and experiences as to discredit and insult them by comparing 

information I acquire by the internet to be able displace their accreditation's, 

experience, knowledge, and skills things I assume you believe I have, to theirs. 

(This implication should be embarrassing if true we know what this implies). I 

simply research so I can demonstrate respect, be able to assist, and cooperate so as 

not to frustrate those attempting to communicate with me. So I can assist them 

efficiently giving them reason to hope that my situation and their valuable 

assistance is to come to a profitable end. I present my discoveries as a request for 

conformation not to attempt to educate, only to clarify. How can I do that when no 

one seems to know the subject in any depth? Or is playing ignorant, and refuses to 

address in any meaningful way, my confusion and help me understand. 

I do not understand confrontational argument, confrontation with my mental 

health issues has been avoided at almost all costs, only clarification and 

understanding and when I achieve this I can live with "it is what it is". 

This case involves our civil rights (substantial rights) as well other rights and 

claims arriving out of these same circumstances. 

There is glaring misconduct, systemic confusion, deception, negligence if not 

outright obstruction of due process by the State of Oregon and the DOJ. If you're 

disabled and are foolish enough to believe you can seek out an ADA coordinator 

and get meaningful assistance, or an advocate to mediate on your behalf for 

meaningful accommodation, it becomes abundantly clear, you better not need them 

because they don't need you! as the ADA coordinator represents the states interest, 

not the disabled. The built in hassle factor of systemic confusion, deception, 

incompetence, negligence, disdain for the mentally ill frustrates the mission of the 

ADA, and the Congressional mandated necessity of assistance of the disabled who 

above all seek hope and help. 

I do not expect anyone to work without just compensation. It is an affront to my 

personal convictions, as it is written "to rob a man of his wages is to rob god & 

thou shall not muzzle the ox". Any qualified attorney will easily see with just a 

5 

Case 3:16-cv-00341-SI Document 1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 12 of 17
cursory review of the transcript that the Appeal will be found clearly in our favor. 

If it were shown to me otherwise, I would, without a doubt stop. Following the 

conclusion of this appeal we will continue to require assistance and reasonable 

accommodations to pursue those other claims and defend our substantial civil 

rights in other actions arising from the same circumstances. 

The attorney who does represent us in this appeal will be the logical choice to 

continue that representation with the reasonable expectation of potentially 

substantial compensation. Show our case to a qualified attorney as a requested 

favor or whatever. It will be clear they will be paid as the prevailing party. Show it 

to community organizations or people you network with. 

I do not agree to be represented by Mr. Mc Vahle. He has demonstrated a lack of 

ability to act as an attorney, having lost every round to date. I have watched his 

mental state deteriorate over the 8 months of homelessness and through the effects 

of at least 5 concussions in that time. 

That being said, I have read Mr. Mc Vahle's portion of this pleading and I agree and 

endorse it. 

Dated 30 December, 2015 

That the Plaintiffs, Gresham, Multnomah County and State, practices Judicial 

deference a doctrine by which all cities counties, State of Oregon, and their courts 

sublimate. (Definition; to divert the expression of (an instinctual desire or impulse) from 

its unacceptable form to one that is considered more socially or culturally acceptable) 

Inquiry is confined to the question of whether any agency's interpretation of any and all 

statutes in their aggregate or standing alone are "inconsistent with [the] statutory 

mandate or . frustrate[s] the congressional policy underlying a statute. 

These violations are systemic, done purposely as all actors except the victim, 

have privileged knowledge and their fore a greater duty of care and cannot claim 

ignorance and acerbates their unconscious able acts. I cannot compete with the 

power of the State and municipalities. 

Swindell if accused of a crime he would be entitled to representation, Swindell 

claims the same under the ADA act as well as other laws or at least a guardian 

pro tern. 

Bad-Faith Conciliation and Dilatory Tactics (tending or intended to create a 

delay or put off reaching a decision) are used to frustrate[s] the congressional 

policy underlying a statute. Denying procedural fair play, and undue delay, in fact, used 

to circumvent procedural rules, delay its investigations and to maintain inflexible in its 

negotiations. 

The issue of the right to representation has been ongoing for 15 months and 

delays are endangering future rights with statute of limitations in related 

unresolved issues resulting out of the circumstances. The failure of the court and 

State actions of Bad-Faith Conciliation and Dilatory Tactics, Judicial deference, failure 

to follow State and Federal laws, and by default, and their dirty hands require that my 

6 

Case 3:16-cv-00341-SI Document 1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 13 of 17
accommodations request of an attorney be granted as a matter of law and 

Congressional mandate. 

Due process that requires fundamental fairness; 

The government, like its citizens, must follow the law. The Oregon Departments of 

JUSTICE AS WELL AS ALL OTHERS must respect the ADA ACT and all related 

Statutes, administrative schemes, and follow the "clearly delineated paths to 

justice" that Congress has created. these decisions signal that the government 

must make reasonable efforts to conciliate in good faith with , by providing notice 

of the underlying challenged practice and responding in a "reasonable and 

flexible manner"., the government may not protract the investigative process for 

years As Swindell a ledges now. 

Defendant Swindell claims he is unable due to his disability to formulate, prepare, 

understand process procedures, present them in a coherent fashion, effectively 

Strategize, and plan,. This is obvious to any observer look at his current 

condition and ongoing abuse. What kind of a demonstration of a plan is this? in 

light of this any further argument is ludicrous. 

Any attempt of self representation would waste court time and resources, as well 

may well leave Swindell in a position of appearing to mock skilled Officers of the 

Court as well as other professionals, who have invested so much to have anyone 

of my person imply he could do remotely as well. I admit I am mentally ill not 

stupid. This is offensive to me, for anyone to think I have such lack of recognition 

and respect as not to appreciate a doctor, nurse, litigator, Judge, Police Officer or 

any other learned tradesman or professionals. I understand courts are adversarial 

I am not. Is the State my adversary? Why? I just want to exist somewhere and 

understand what I should do that will appease everyone or satisfy them. Write out 

clear instructions so I can be in compliance and not pursued and a nuisance. 

Standing; Swindell claims facts stated here have met the requirements: 

Injury-in-fact: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury-an 

invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) 

actual or imminent (that is, neither conjectural nor hypothetical; not abstract). The injury 

can be either economic, non-economic, or both. 

Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct 

complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the 

defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not 

before the court. Q§.1 

Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable 

court decision will redress the injury. 

Prohibition of generalized grievances, Swindell's claims are Specific. 

Swindell for 14 months has sought representation and accommodations to 

exhaustion 

The Defendant has shown a strong or substantial likelihood of success on the merits; 

that his rights must be protected with counsel as it is established he has been unable to 

do on his own to any meaningful results in part, by indifference of the Plaintiffs taking 

advantage of cognitive disabilities known at all times by them. 

That irreparable harm has been and will be continued without an injunction; 

Issuance of a preliminary injunction will not result in substantial harm to others. 

7 

Case 3:16-cv-00341-SI Document 1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 14 of 17
Swindell is directly harmed by the conditions by which he is petitioning the court for the 

harm involved has reasonable relation to the situation, and the continued existence of 

the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief.- the so-called 

"chilling effects" doctrine. 

The public interest is advanced by the injunction. Being denied the benefits of, or 

being subjected to discrimination by reason of his disability. He will be irreparably 

harmed if a preliminary injunction is not issued. it is evident that money could not 

replace the rights he would lose if unable to have representation. 

The Court should conclude that issuance of a preliminary injunction will not result in 

substantial harm to others. In fact it is the most cost effective. The Court will retain 

jurisdiction over this matter in the event that any further problems arise which are 

unrelated to her disability, or which cannot be reasonably 

It is the purpose of both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act to provide a coherent 

framework and consistent and enforceable standards for the elimination of 

discrimination against individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1) and (2);29 

U.S.C. § 701. Such discrimination may be manifested in a variety of forms, including in 

the form of the rigid application of rules and policies, found in this case, which operates 

unreasonably to exclude an otherwise qualified individual from receiving the benefits of 

a reasonable accommodation. The Court should conclude that there is a significant 

public interest in eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities, and that 

such public interest is advanced by issuing an injunction against The Plaintiffs City of 

Gresham and The Multnomah County Courts ordering immediate representation. After a 

careful balancing of the -mentioned factors, the Court should find that they weigh in 

favor of granting a preliminary injunction. 

Swindell claims Laws and regulations are intentionally kept under a certain status 

or punishment, to not allow victims of the here stated abuses to request legal 

representation which it is due them. That this practice is to defeat the accused 

their 14th amendment and other rights and rights under ADA ACT. Allowing non 

criminal acts to be used to punish and abuse the undefended, as if they were 

criminals limiting Life liberty and the pursuit of anything meaningful to the 

abused. If the accused were defended perpetrators actions would brought under 

proper oversight, 

to the appointment of counsel for appellant, subdivision (a) of CPLR 1102 provides 

that "The court in its order permitting a person to proceed as a poor person may assign 

an attorney." Court decisions under the similar predecessor provision of the Rules of 

Civil Practice held that failure to assign counsel made the order defective ( Matter of 

Hawkins v.Hotel Statler, 258 App. Div. 818; Schechter v. Lichtenstein, 223 App. Div. 

60, 61; Pankawicusv. Nichols Copper Co., 169 App. Div. 419, 420). On the other 

hand, the Sixth Report to the Legislature by the Senate Finance Committee relative to 

the revision of the Civil Practice Act calls attention to the use of the word "may" in 

subdivision (a) of CPLR 1102 and the intent to make appointment of an attorney 

discretionary (6th Report, N.Y. Legis. Doc., 1962, No. 8, p. 173). Be that as it may, 

the right of an indigent tenant to assigned counsel under the 14th Amendment of the 

United States Constitution, to defend his right to remain in possession of his dwelling 

1s forcefully indicated by recent rulings of the United States Supreme Court 

8 

Case 3:16-cv-00341-SI Document 1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 15 of 17
(Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, supra; Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395; see, 

also, Rodriguez v. Rosenblatt, 58 N.J. 281; Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 

12; Jeffreysv. Jeffreys, 58 Misc.2d 1045, supra; Tehan v. Shott, 382 U.S. 406, 416). 

Absent counsel, there is evident possibility of unfairness in the disparate expertise of 

landlord's attorney and that of the tenant appearing in person. 

As Mr. Justice HARLAN wrote for the United States Supreme Court 

in Boddie v.Connecticut (supra, p. 377): "Prior cases establish, first, that due process 

requires, at a minimum, that absent a countervailing state interest of overriding 

significance, persons forced to settle their claims of right and duty through the judicial 

process must be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Early in our 

jurisprudence, this Court voiced the doctrine that ' [ w ]herever one is assailed in his 

person or his property, there he may defend.' Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274, 

277 ( 187 6)." *836836 

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring, observed (p. 383): "Griffin has had a sturdy 

growth. 'Our decisions for more than a decade now have made clear that differences 

in access to the instruments needed to vindicate legal rights, when based upon the 

financial situation of the defendant, are repugnant to the Constitution.' Roberts v. La 

Vallee, 389 U.S. 40, 42." 

He noted thereafter (p. 386): "Here the invidious discrimination is based on one of the 

guidelines: poverty." As a "matter of simple justice, no indigent defendant should be 

subjected to * * * consequence of magnitude without first having had due and fair 

opportunity to have counsel assigned without cost." (Rodriguez v. Rosenblatt, 

supra,N.Y.L.J., May 27, 1971, pp. 1, 5, col. 2.) 

If, however, counsel is available to tenant through a public or semi-public agency, 

tenant should be relegated to such an agency (People ex rel. Baumgart v. Martin, .2 

N.Y.2d 351,supra; Slawekv. United States, 413 F.2d 957, supra). 

The issue of assignment of counsel is accordingly also remanded to the court below, 

to explore the legal facilities available to tenant. If such facilities are not available to 

tenant, counsel shall be assigned to her by the court below. 

Congress' finding that 

"individuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority who have been faced with 

restrictions and limitations. subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment. and 

relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our society, based on characteristics 

that are beyond the control of such individuals and resulting from stereotypic assumptions 

not truly indicative of the individual ability of such individuals to participate in. and 

contribute to. society." 42 U.S. C. §12101(a)(7). 

These rights include some. like the right of access to the courts at issue in this case, that are 

protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Due Process 

Clause and the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. as applied to the States via 

the Fourteenth 

The Due Process Clause also requires the States to afford certain civil litigants a 

"meaningful opportunity to be heard" by removing obstacles to their full participation in 

judicial proceedings. Boddie v. Connecticut. 401 U. S. 371, 379(1971); M. L.B. v. S. L. J .. 519 

u. s. 102 (1996). 

). The decisions of other courts, too, document a pattern of unequal treatment in the 

administration of a wide range of public services, programs, 

9 

Case 3:16-cv-00341-SI Document 1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 16 of 17
and activities, including the penal system,n public 

education,n and voting.u Notably, these decisions also demonstrate a pattern of 

unconstitutional treatment in the administration of justice.Y. 

This pattern of disability discrimination persisted despite several federal and state 

legislative efforts to address it. In the deliberations that led up to the enactment of the 

ADA, Congress identified important shortcomings in existing laws that rendered them 

"inadequate to address the pervasive problems of discrimination that people with 

disabilities are facing." S. Rep. No. 101-116, at 18. See also H. R. Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 2, at 

4 7.M It also uncovered further evidence of those shortcomings, in the form of hundreds of 

examples of unequal treatment of persons with disabilities by States and their political 

subdivisions. SeeGarrett, 531 U.S .. at 379 (Breyer, J., dissenting). See also id., at 391 (App. 

C to opinion of Breyer, J.,dissenting). As the Court's opinion in Garrett observed, the 

"overwhelming majority" of these examples concerned discrimination in the 

administration of public programs and services. Id., at 371, n. 7; Government's Lodging 

in Garrett, O. T. 2000, No. 99-1240 (available in Clerk of Court's case file). 

Congress' chosen remedy for the pattern of exclusion and discrimination described above, 

Title H's requirement of program accessibility, is congruent and proportional to its object 

of enforcing the right of access to the courts. The unequal treatment of disabled persons in 

the administration of judicial services has a long history, and has persisted despite several 

legislative efforts to remedy the problem of disability discrimination. Faced with 

considerable evidence of the shortcomings of previous legislative responses, Congress was 

justified in concluding that this "difficult and intractable proble[m)" warranted "added 

prophylactic measures in response." Hibbs, 538 U. S .• at 737 (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

The remedy Congress chose is nevertheless a limited one. Recognizing that failure to 

accommodate persons with disabilities will often have the same practical effect as outright 

exclusion. 

Title II's affirmative obligation to accommodate persons with disabilities in the administration of justice 

cannot be said to be "so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object that it cannot be 

understood as responsive to. or designed to prevent. unconstitutional behavior." Boerne. 521 U. S .. at 

532: Kimel. s28 U. S .. at 86.24 It is. rather. a reasonable prophylactic measure. reasonably targeted to a 

legitimate end. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act), 42 U. S. C. §§12101-12213, is a 

measure expected to advance equal-citizenship stature for persons with disabilities. See 

Bagenstos. Subordination. Stigma, and "Disability," 86 Va. L. Rev. 397, 471 (2000) (ADA 

aims both to "guarante[e] a baseline of equal citizenship by protecting against stigma and 

systematic exclusion from public and private opportunities, 

"I hereby declare that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge 

and belief, and that I understand it is made for use as evidence in court and is 

subject to penalty for perjury. 

Asa Carl Swindell February 2015 

Signature of Tenant 1 

277 Se 16th Ct. Troutdale OR 970606 (503) 206 - 1530 

10 

Case 3:16-cv-00341-SI Document 1 Filed 02/24/16 Page 17 of 17