June 6 felt like the weight of institutional resistance pressed in on every front. I filed a supplement to my Rule 59(e) motion documenting new evidence that the Eastern District had improperly disclosed my unserved ex parte TRO to outside parties—an action that became clear when it was cited in the OAH’s May 23 Final Decision to discredit me. This confirmed inter-court coordination or unauthorized surveillance and showed how that breach was weaponized in a completely unrelated state proceeding. I also noted how the prior suppression of my Record on Appeal conveniently disappeared once my federal suit was filed—further reinforcing that the original obstruction was not based on law but on containment. It also showed that Judge Osteen’s delay was causing me further harm.
That same day, Auld issued yet another denial of my electronic filing request—this time in my § 1983 case—using the exact same language and reasoning from my other case, with no analysis and no regard for the fact that the facts, procedural history, and legal basis were different. His order simply stated that it was denied for the same reasons as before, effectively admitting that he did not evaluate this case on its own merit. This happened even though I had already objected to his involvement in this case due to his ongoing recusal issues and filed a notice requesting reassignment due to the clear conflict of interest.
I immediately filed a Rule 72(a) objection pointing out that his denial lacked legal basis, ignored my ADA request entirely, and was issued by a judge under pending recusal motion in a related case—making it retaliatory, not judicial. I also objected to the improper assignment of the motion to him in the first place, given that I had already filed a recusal motion and specifically directed the request to the District Judge. This pattern of repeated denial without reason, while ignoring jurisdictional objections, continues to escalate the harm.
To top it off, I completed personal service on the defendants in their official capacity, only to be laughed at by a clerk who mocked my filings and incorrectly claimed I wasn’t allowed to hand-deliver service to a process agent—even though that is permitted by law. I sent an email citing the law asking for future filing be void of any personal scrutiny just because I am a pro se litigant.