What happened on May 26 and 27 wasn’t judicial review—it was judicial retaliation wrapped in technicality. In my federal Fair Housing Act case against Anna, Magistrate Judge Auld issued back-to-back rulings that dismissed my renewed motion for electronic filing access and my motion for his recusal. But neither order was grounded in law—they were personal, procedural smokescreens designed to discredit me rather than address the substance of my requests.
In denying my CM/ECF motion, Judge Auld claimed I violated Local Rule 7.3(a) by not attaching a separate brief—even though my motion clearly included all required elements, just like a brief would. His entire justification hinged on that supposed procedural misstep, ignoring the fact that the Local Rule doesn’t require a separate document or labeling, and certainly not for a motion that was judge-directed and not served on the other party. This wasn’t about enforcing rules—it was about creating a reason to deny my ADA-based accommodation request.
Then, the next day, he denied my motion to recuse him—again claiming I violated the same rule in the same way, and again mischaracterizing my filings to justify it. Even worse, he used language that suggested I was simply upset because of prior adverse rulings, painting me as irrational and accusatory, without engaging the verified facts or legal standards I cited. He ignored my evidence of bias, dismissed my procedural concerns, and deflected every substantive point with circular logic: that I didn’t comply because he says I didn’t comply. The irony? I had titled my CM/ECF motion specifically as “Directed to District Judge,” but he intercepted it anyway—then used that to assert jurisdiction he didn’t have.
This wasn’t just improper. It was calculated. He used the same boilerplate language he’s issued in other pro se cases, offering no case-specific review, no legal reasoning, just cut-and-paste denial. The timing was suspicious too—issued late in the day, over a holiday weekend, when I was already under pressure and without access to court mail. It felt like the system closing in.
So I filed a motion to strike both rulings. I made clear that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Auld had no authority to issue dispositive rulings without my consent—consent I never gave. I emphasized that my motion for electronic access wasn’t a convenience request; it was a reasonable accommodation for my disability, supported by federal law. Instead of reviewing it neutrally, he retaliated. I also reminded the Court that recusal isn’t about winning or losing—it’s about whether impartiality can reasonably be questioned. And after how he handled both rulings, there’s no question left.
Judges are expected to rise above personal reaction and apply the law. Instead, I got defensiveness dressed up as procedure. That’s not justice—that’s institutional gaslighting.