Thirty years of the same mobility-access question.

Federal case · requested Supreme Court review

The request is for ordinary adversarial consideration.

Certiorari strategy: Seek Supreme Court review of the federal case, vacatur of the judgment, and remand for ordinary adversarial consideration. The current petition is a filing candidate; this summary does not report a Supreme Court filing or grant of review.

The procedural question: Whether the appeal could be decided on the appellate court’s own Rule 41 dismissal-factor balancing without first giving Troy an opportunity to address that balancing, even though Rule 41 had been mentioned below. That is the petitioner’s question, not a finding that the courts acted unlawfully.

The Ninth Circuit also rejected Petitioner’s due-process and access-to-courts contentions. The procedural request does not erase that adverse ruling.

Keep the records distinct: Later scientific measurements and current transportation reports do not establish what the lower courts or building officials knew in 2025, and do not substitute for the record below. Executive review and the proposed legislative pilot proceed on separate tracks.

Institutional requests

The documentary pattern

Recognition in one setting did not settle the next access question.

Court, transit and DMV records each have their own scope. Read the chronology for the document and source status behind each event; Government Review explains the current institutional requests.

Chronology

What institutions actually did

1. 2003

   CalTrain · access conflict

   Video record

   Public video preserves a transit access encounter.

   What happened: A public CalTrain video records an access conflict involving inline skates used for mobility. The video shows the encounter and its practical access question; it does not adjudicate the legal meaning of every event.

   Documented outcome: The video is documentary context. The present corpus does not contain a reviewed agency disposition for this specific encounter.

   Video record: “CalTrain Civil Rights Violation” is available through the site’s public video archive. No transcript or complete agency case file has been supplied for this card.

   Source status · video verified · administrative disposition source gap

   Watch video
2. 2004

   DFEH / BART · transit access matter

   Administrative review

   Public archive preserves a DFEH ruling and BART response.

   What happened: The published archive includes a DFEH ruling and a BART refusal letter connected with a request to use skates in a transit setting.

   Documented outcome: These documents preserve an administrative and institutional record. This summary does not collapse them into a single adjudicated conclusion or assign fault beyond their stated scope.

   Source status · primary documents verified

   View DFEH recordView BART response
3. 2005

   San Mateo court · courtroom accommodation

   Recognized / accommodated

   A courtroom record documents permission to use skates.

   What happened: A published San Mateo courtroom accommodation record concerns use of inline skates as a mobility aid.

   Documented outcome: The linked record documents a setting-specific court accommodation. It is not a universal ruling for all courts or facilities.

   Source status · primary document verified

   View document
4. 2006

   U.S. Department of Justice → U.S. Department of Transportation

   Administrative review

   A civil-rights complaint was referred to transportation authorities.

   What happened: DOJ Civil Rights referred the BART matter to DOT as outside that office’s jurisdiction, asked for investigation if DOT had Section 504 or Title II jurisdiction, and requested DOT’s final written disposition in DOJ’s coordination role.

   Documented outcome: A referral initiates or continues administrative review; it is not itself a mandate, a universal certification, or a final disposition.

   Source status · primary correspondence verified

   View DOJ correspondence
5. 2007

   DOT / FTA / BART · fact-specific determination

   Administrative determination

   Federal transit review produced a fact-specific access framework.

   What happened: FTA issued a determination in the BART matter after the civil-rights complaint was referred to DOT.

   Documented outcome: FTA left threshold mobility-aid questions unresolved but analyzed reasonable modification and direct threat as if resolved for Petitioner. It accepted restrictions on vehicles and platforms, while requiring access in concourses and BART-controlled outside areas subject to fact-based conditions. It was neither general certification nor permission to use skates everywhere.

   “FTA will address the direct threat and reasonable modification issues as if the other issues were decided in your favor”

   FTA Complaint 06-0135, October 15, 2007, original page 2

   The remaining sentence permits BART to raise the reserved issues separately. FTA’s class-level analysis on page 3 was not a universal classification: it required accommodation in concourses and BART-controlled outside areas subject to fact-based restrictions, while accepting platform and heavy-rail restrictions. Read the complete official finding.

   Source status · primary administrative determination verified; assumed premise and divided result preserved

   View FTA determinationView historical DOT/FTA correspondence bundle

   Scope note

   Troy contends that the agency’s direct-threat treatment did not adequately incorporate his evidence. That is Troy’s interpretation of the record, not a conclusion stated here as an adjudicated finding.

6. 2008

   BART implementation → SamTrans ADA ParaTransit

   Implementation correspondence

   BART supported an ADA ParaTransit access path after the FTA ruling.

   What happened: BART wrote that FTA asked it to develop a transportation plan and recognized Petitioner reported pain when removing his skates, leaving him unable to use BART under the train and platform restrictions. BART supported regular ADA ParaTransit eligibility through SamTrans, identified it as the transit agency serving his residence, and asked ParaTransit partners to permit riding while wearing the skates.

   Scope: This is BART’s implementation correspondence, separate from FTA’s 2007 determination. It does not establish a later contractor’s legal responsibility or reverse the platform/train restrictions.

   Source status · February 8, 2008 primary BART letter reviewed; private correspondence not republished here

7. 2022

   California DMV · driver-safety proceeding

   Administrative review

   DMV records document an administrative sequence and reinstatement.

   What happened: The public archive contains a suspension order, a driving-accommodation pleading, a reinstatement record, and a later document concerning operation while wearing skates.

   Documented outcome: DMV performed individualized review and documented operation with the skates. The physical license carries Restriction 50: “Customized restrictions on file—Contact DMV.” This points to customized operating information in DMV’s record; it does not create universal mobility-aid certification or portable permission for other environments.

   Source status · primary documents verified

   View suspension orderView reinstatementView the documented operating conditions
8. 2025

   Federal building / court access

   Petitioner's account

   Filing and legal consultation faced separate access barriers.

   Troy reports that entry to file his federal civil-rights case required removing the skates, causing substantial pain. For a later scheduled face-to-face Federal Pro Bono Project consultation, he reports that entry with the skates was refused; attorney Andrea came outside and met him on park benches. The meeting was productive and identified BART/ParaTransit accommodation history. He reports reduced privacy, Internet and physical-record access, seating tolerance and productive consultation time outside, and wanted further accessible in-person assistance. He does not claim a second appointment was separately scheduled and refused.

   Completed service addresses could be emailed or mailed. His argument concerns the accessible help needed to identify, verify and organize claims, defendants, records and addresses before transmission. The 2005 court accommodation above did not automatically govern this federal building.

   Source status · Petitioner's reported account; no access-liability finding on this page

   Institutional access argument
9. 2025

   San Mateo Event Center / County Fair

   Source gap

   Prior accommodation and later restriction require source-by-source reconstruction.

   Source distinctions: A 2014 guest comment form records an access complaint involving security and a vendor; it is not a signed blanket permission letter. The 2022 CAD records an access dispute and adverse caller allegations, not an adjudicated safety or discrimination finding. Troy reports temporary removal and return of his support staff; the body-camera contents have not been reviewed here.

   2025 account: Troy’s filed declaration describes being allowed entry and then warned against returning with the skates. A proposed TRO attached to a pleading is not an entered favorable order. Current policy, precise actor responsibilities and unresolved evidence remain questions for review. Raw controlled records are not republished.

   Source status · Video verified / source gap

   Watch Video
10. 2025

    United / American Airlines · air travel

    Source gap

    Earlier acceptance, a disputed return accommodation, and rebooking.

    Documented carrier position: A United Accessibility email reproduced in the filed October 2025 exhibits declines approval of the skates as a mobility aid for upcoming flights, including the October 20 return. Its assertion about applicable law is the carrier’s position, not a legal determination by this site.

    Attributed consequences: Troy’s renewed TRO motion alleges earlier September business-trip and outbound Virginia acceptance, cancellation of the October 20 return, and rebooking on American for October 19. Actual completion, cost, refund and earlier permissions require separate evidence. Airline operations require ACAA/Part 382 analysis; the retailer Title III assessment is separate. This is not a finding of airline liability.

    Source status · personal account / source gap

11. 2001–2026

    Hillsdale Shopping Center · common-area accommodation

    Primary correspondence reviewed

    A documented accommodation continued into a new management review.

    2001 documented action: Hillsdale Shopping Center's July 27, 2001 letter approved disability-related inline-skate use in shopping-center common areas subject to operating conditions. Troy signed acceptance on August 20, 2001. The letter expressly did not grant automatic access inside individual stores.

    2026 documented action: On September 15, Regional General Manager Jeremiah Gregory acknowledged Hillsdale management issued the original letter and said he was willing to continue honoring it subject to stated speed, badge, elevator, and pedestrian-safety expectations. On September 16, Troy requested particulars and preservation of the complaints and observations cited. His October 18 proposal asked Northwood to review the concerns, clarify tenant-specific access, and consider jointly seeking DOJ guidance; it was not a joint agreement.

    Limits: The correspondence records concerns, not a verified collision or injury. Troy's statement that he knows of no skate-related injury to another Hillsdale patron remains his account. The ongoing discussion is not characterized as a final denial or an adjudicated violation.

    Source status · 2001 Hillsdale letter and 2026 Northwood correspondence primary-document verified; no private correspondence republished