You can go to our
Newsletters.
Or search for a word here:
Angela Spell vs. UCD: Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court
Angela Spell was one of twelve medical school students, all
minority and/or female, who were kicked out of UCD between January 1994 and
June 1996. Prior to this, normal attrition was one student or less per year but
during that period the attrition rate increased to almost 5 students per year
(see Fall 1996 Newsletter)
Three students were able to graduate from foreign
(expensive) medical schools. And, as a result of the organized effort of Health
Professionals for Fairness and Progress led by Spell, she and two of these
twelve were reinstated (these two are now practicing physicians) and positive
policy changes resulted regarding student rights at UCD School of Medicine.
However, because she was seen as the “whistle-blower” by the
administration, Spell was targeted for unlawful retaliation before she returned
to UCD in March 1996. She was dismissed again in November 1996, ostensibly for
“failure to meet academic standards” in her Pediatrics rotation,
which she has compelling proof that she actually passed; and she was denied a
just administrative appeal. As a non-affluent single mother who had already
suffered financial devastation as a result of UCD’s discriminatory
actions, Spell did not have the financial resources to hire an attorney.
Nevertheless, understanding that this was a “David vs.
Goliath” situation, she filed a federal lawsuit in 1996 without an
attorney of record to preserve her legal interests. Spell litigated the case
through two years of legal maneuvers to dismiss her case by the powerful UC
attorneys from the huge SF law firm, Gordon and Rees. Eventually Spell retained
an attorney on contingency just as her case was going to trial in 1998.
But, because of this attorney’s gross neglect of her
case, she was unable to file any legally effective opposition to UC’s
summary judgment motion to have her case thrown out of court, which the
District Court granted. This neglect included, but was not limited to, failure
to conduct any discovery or attend critical depositions, letting the discovery
deadline lapse, then attempting to withdraw from the case he had botched, and
failing to prepare any of the compelling evidence that Spell had gathered or to
oppose UC’s motion.
Because of Spell’s repeated complaints during this
critical stage, the District Court finally granted her request to remove her
attorney. However, the Court denied her concurrent requests to reopen
discovery, then gave her only two weeks to oppose UC’s massive summary judgment motion at a time when she was
without any representation! Not surprisingly, this was a Herculean task she
simply was not trained to do. Angela responded but the Court ignored official
letters of witnesses, statistics, and other documents, because as a
non-attorney she didn’t submit this evidence in the appropriate
evidentiary format. This evidence
was indeed probative of her discrimination and retaliations claims and
indicated that there were important facts in dispute that should have precluded
the granting of summary judgment for UC.
Her motion for reconsideration of this ruling, which due to
financial constraints, she had to write herself, was also denied by the
District Court.
In 1999, Angela appealed this decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as an abuse of
discretion by the District Court. This abuse of discretion resulted in the
barring of her legal claims based not upon the merits of her case, but due to
gross attorney negligence. The 9th Circuit denied her appeal, issuing a brief
unpublished order stating “attorney error is insufficient grounds for
relief.”
Spell chose to appeal the 9th
Circuit ruling all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that attorney
error/neglect is grounds for relief, for two reasons: First, she knows that the
merits of her case, which encompasses disparate treatment of her as an
individual and disparate impact against minority students as a group, have
never been heard. Second, Angela believes that the right of a person to have
their day in court should not be barred by an attorney’s gross
negligence, by which in her case, UC unduly benefited. She believes that this
is particularly egregious when the District Court was quite aware of the negligence.
Moreover, the District Court does have the authority, disciplinary power, and
duty to rectify such a situation, in the interest of justice. Spell believes
that the failure to do so was, indeed, an abuse of discretion
In May 2001 Angela filed her own brief with the U.S. Supreme
Court requesting a 60-day extension of the deadline to petition the U.S.
Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari
(a discretionary review of a lower court’s decision). Justice
O’Connor granted an extension of 30 days.
In June, despite being in the midst of moving, Spell raised
the $7233 needed for Attorney James Braden of SF to file this petition. Of this
cost Moe and Charity Hirsch of WAGE contributed $500. The Court hears only 100
of the 5000 writ of certiorari petitions
it receives per year so the odds that the petition will be reviewed are not
favorable. Should she win, Spell will be back at the 9th Circuit and/or the District Court trying to fight the
discrimination she and other minority students experienced at UCD.
-wage@wage.org-