Shannon Perry v. Encore at Boulevard One LLC, et al.

Disabled adults are entitled under the Fourteenth Amendment to meaningful court access and due process when pursuing civil-rights disability-discrimination claims. Petitioner, a disabled pro se litigant, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Violence Against Women Act, alleging housing discrimination, perjury, and fraud on the court that deprived her of housing. The District of Colorado denied a guardian ad litem under Rule 17(c)(2) and ADA accommodations despite documented disabilities that impaired her ability to brief. The Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal on March 6, 2026, without reaching the merits and by applying strict waiver rules. That ruling conflicts with this Court’s authority on due process, equal protection, fraud on the court, the Mathews balancing test, and meaningful access, leaving Petitioner unable to litigate her federal claims and denying equal protection to the protected disability class. The Questions Presented are:

1. Whether the Tenth Circuit, in its Order and Judgment in Appendix G, created a conflict with this Court’s authority under the Fourteenth Amendment by affirming the dismissal of a disabled pro se litigant’s civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Violence Against Women Act on waiver and inadequate-briefing grounds, despite the denial of a guardian ad litem under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2) and reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, thereby denying meaningful access to the courts in conflict with Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), and Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971).

2. Whether the Tenth Circuit, in its Order and Judgment in Appendix G, created a conflict with this Court’s decision in Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944), by affirming the district court’s judgment without reaching the merits of well-documented perjury and fraud-on-the-court claims, thereby affirming the denial of any evidentiary hearing on those claims in violation of due process.

3. Whether the Tenth Circuit, in its Order and Judgment in Appendix G, created a conflict with this Court’s authority by affirming the dismissal of the litigants federal civil rights claims on procedural grounds, thereby resulting in indirect permission of Colorado statute to authorize or encourage private discrimination in housing in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and the Fair Housing Act, in a manner that permits the state statute to supersede the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3600, 3604, and 3615, contrary to this Court’s decisions in cases such as Heitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967), Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (2015), and Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999).