JUDICIAL
Petition for Certiorari: was termination procedurally proper? Request vacatur and remand for adversarial consideration.
Public briefing
GOVERNMENT / INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW
One record. Different institutional responsibilities.
THREE PRIMARY REVIEW ROUTES
THE SITUATION IN 30 SECONDS
Inline skates used as a disability-related mobility aid have received individual accommodation in courts, transit and licensing, but recognition has not reliably traveled. A prior court accommodation did not prevent reported federal-building barriers to filing and legal consultation. Changed ParaTransit service now raises questions about delays, seating and measured transportation burden. DMV Restriction 50 records operating information, not portable mobility-aid recognition. The public evidence is longitudinal N-of-1, not a population-wide finding.
- Judicial: seek vacatur and remand for adversarial review; the certiorari petition is a filing candidate, not filed.
- Executive: seek immediate DOJ/DOT/FTA/GSA access and transportation review, independent of the pilot.
- Legislative: seek an interagency NSMA pilot and six-month report, or a narrow pilot/study provision.
- Proposed standard: HandicapSkater.org offers a function-first framework with individualized safety review; it is not current law.
The 2005 San Mateo court accommodation did not control the later federal building. DMV documented operation with the skates; physical license Restriction 50 says “Customized restrictions on file—Contact DMV.” This is a restriction/record mechanism, not universal certification. License imagery DMV record
Petitioner's account and procedural argument · not all links are adjudicated findings
WHEN ACCESS TO THE COURT AFFECTS ACCESS TO THE CASE
- Petitioner used the skates to reach the courthouse; he reports that federal-building entry required removal, causing substantial pain and making filing physically burdensome.
- For a scheduled face-to-face Federal Pro Bono Project consultation, he reports entry with the skates was refused. Attorney Andrea came outside to park benches.
- The productive consultation identified BART/ParaTransit accommodation history. Petitioner reports reduced privacy, Internet access, physical-document review, seating tolerance and time for legal synthesis outside.
- He wanted further accessible consultation to identify and verify claims, defendants, records and service addresses. No separately scheduled and refused second visit is claimed.
- Service preparation remained difficult; the Ninth Circuit later used service noncompliance as its dispositive alternative Rule 41/Pagtalunan ground.
Preparation and transmission differ. Completed addresses could be emailed or mailed. Petitioner's argument concerns accessible assistance to prepare accurate information before sending it. Courthouse access account
Judicial request · filing candidate, not filed
The sole Question Presented concerns appellate procedure.
The district court dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Ninth Circuit affirmed on an alternative service/Rule 41/Pagtalunan ground without a respondent merits brief or requested factor-specific supplemental briefing. It also rejected due-process and access-to-courts contentions. Petitioner asks the Supreme Court to vacate and remand for ordinary adversarial consideration, not to decide the proposed NSMA standard. Later science is not presented as evidence the lower courts possessed. Judicial record
Executive action can proceed now
CURRENT TRANSPORTATION URGENCY
Private taxi/sedan ParaTransit was the longstanding practical accommodation through January 2025. Troy reports new pain and discomfort after a shift to MV-operated bus, van, back-seat and shared-ride configurations; this does not mean every such ride is harmful. Reported delays include a pickup about 1.5 hours past an expected 20-minute window, added passenger routing, an arrival about 1.5 hours after the approximately 9:00 schedule, and a separate delay that prevented PCA participation at PT. Waiting and lateness are service issues; waiting outside is not measured in-vehicle exposure.
May 23 and corrected October 2 show different measured burden signatures. Mechanics, HR/HRV and reported pain remain separate. The immediate question is which vehicle, seating, routing and pickup/arrival practices can provide service while reducing avoidable burden. DOJ/DOT/FTA/GSA transportation and federal-building access review need not wait for an NSMA pilot. Transportation Evidence
Different institutional jobs
FROM EVIDENCE TO A WORKING STANDARD
EXECUTIVE
Executive Brief: request immediate DOJ/DOT/FTA/GSA review of ParaTransit, federal-building access, Restriction 50 portability and airline recognition, plus an interagency NSMA pilot. Immediate action does not wait for the pilot.
LEGISLATIVE
Legislative Brief: sponsor a congressional letter requesting an interagency NSMA pilot and findings and recommendations to Congress within six months; alternatively, a narrow pilot/study provision. Current administrative action proceeds independently.
EVIDENCE
HandicapSkater.com tests functional claims with longitudinal N-of-1 measurements. Walking was higher than Mall skating for vertical RMS on all 55 matched dates. Transportation has distinct burden signatures and vehicle/body conditions. Neither sensors nor HR directly measure pain.
STANDARD
HandicapSkater.org proposes Function → Evidence → Environment → Actual Risk → Mitigation → Documented Scoped Decision → Portable Record. Bounded reassessment retains verified facts when circumstances have not changed and reviews what has.
Problem → Evidence → Adjudication → Immediate Administration → Durable Standard
Different proceedings, distinct source status
HISTORICAL CONTINUITY
This chronology shows why the portability question predates the present federal case. It does not merge separate court, transit, and licensing proceedings into one ruling.
Explore the source-labeled chronology
- 2003Caltrain access dispute and publicly labeled video. The precise capture date and citation number are unverified. Historical record
- 2005San Mateo Superior Court granted a setting-specific accommodation to use skates as a mobility aid in case 904405. Court form
- 2006DOJ referred a civil-rights complaint to DOT. Referral was not a final ruling. DOJ record →
- 2007FTA issued a BART-specific determination using environment-sensitive modification and direct-threat analysis, not universal certification. FTA record
- 2022DMV conducted individualized driver-safety review; Restriction 50 records customized conditions but does not confer portable mobility-aid recognition. Privacy-safe record
- 2025Petitioner reports federal-building filing and legal-consultation access barriers; these are not presented as adjudicated findings. Account and record status
- 2025–2026Changed ParaTransit configurations and continuing governed N-of-1 transportation evidence. Transportation evidence
- 2026Judicial, immediate Executive, and Legislative requests are coordinated with a proposed public standards framework. This is a strategy, not enacted law.
A reported 2008 BART/ParaTransit implementation step is not recast here as a verified federal finding; the FTA determination and later service implementation require separate source records.
Public recordings · bounded observation
VISUAL EVIDENCE
These public links provide context for specific encounters and ride conditions. The recordings do not directly measure pain, pelvic or SI-joint force, or legal liability. Filming dates and upload dates are distinct.
Watch the three public recordings
Caltrain station encounter
Publicly labeled 2003; original capture date remains unverified. Uniformed transit officers and an interaction at a station entrance are visible. The video alone does not establish the citation number or outcome.
Watch public Caltrain video ↗ParaTransit ride · October 24, 2025
Date identified by the uploader and an appellate filing; native capture clock unverified. The passenger interior and camera movement are visible. The uploader interprets the ride as painful; the video does not quantify mechanics or pain.
Watch public ride video ↗ParaTransit ride · November 1, 2025
Date identified by the uploader and an appellate filing; native capture clock unverified. The passenger interior and camera movement are visible. The video has no validated synchronization to mechanical telemetry.
Watch public ride video ↗Federal-building footage: surveillance was requested for July 24, 2025, but no recording has been located in the reviewed archive. A future authenticated public release can be added here after provenance and publication review; the request is not footage.