On January 30, 2025, Chief District Court Judge Eagles denied my motion to have the case designated as an exceptional civil case under Rule 2.1, stating that the claims weren’t complex and there weren’t enough parties to warrant the designation—even though this was the very same case where defendants were allowed to delay proceedings to secure a more experienced attorney due to its supposed complexity.
She also misrepresented the procedural record by referencing a motion for leave to amend that I had withdrawn, making it sound as though it had been granted by the court; this is a serious issue because it creates the false impression that my most recent amended complaint was filed improperly without leave, which could be used against me in the defendants’ upcoming hearing on the motion to strike.
This was also the order Judge Walczyk referenced in my January 30 hearing, admitting that the denial had already been communicated prior to the hearing, which means my motion was discussed and ruled on off-record. Judge Eagles didn’t address any of the actual arguments I raised in the motion, including the need for unified judicial oversight due to procedural confusion, overlapping motions, and prejudice I was facing as a pro se litigant.
The fact that this came from the Chief District Court Judge—the person responsible for preventing judicial inefficiency—only underscores the hypocrisy and lack of impartiality that has plagued this case from the start.
While this type of motion wouldn’t normally be subject to an interlocutory appeal, I included it because—combined with everything else—it reflects a broader pattern of procedural bias against me as a pro se litigant, and that pattern is what constitutes a violation of my substantial rights.