On June 5, AL Judge Turrentine immediately denied my Rule 59(e) motion challenging the May 23 final decision, which I filed to correct legal and factual errors, retaliatory framing, and improper judicial notice of unrelated litigation—including an unserved federal complaint that raised serious due process and surveillance concerns. The denial falsely claimed the motion was untimely, despite the three-day extension allowed for service by mail, and wrongly labeled it a second reconsideration request, even though it was my first motion under Rule 59(e).
It was also clear the judge didn’t read the motion thoroughly, because if she had, she would have seen I wasn’t attacking her—I was offering her one last opportunity to do the right thing and issue a lawful, fair ruling. Instead, she deflected again, refusing to address any of the substantive issues raised, and reaffirmed the same retaliatory and discriminatory conduct I had hoped to remedy.