After Judge Osteen denied my Rule 72(a) objection on July 7, I filed a Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, documenting not only manifest legal errors but also selective enforcement of local rules, disregard for due process, and deeper concerns about institutional integrity. The judge upheld every single one of Magistrate Auld’s rulings—including the denial of my motion for CM/ECF access—without addressing the statutory requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) for a proper judicial designation, and despite the fact that the docket originally listed Judge Osteen himself as the referral judge. Only after I called the Clerk’s Office was the record quietly “corrected”—a retroactive fix that should have invalidated the rulings entirely.
Osteen’s order essentially argued that because I filed a renewed motion a few days after the first was denied, I had failed to “demonstrate” compliance. He didn’t acknowledge the ADA-based access request at all—then claimed the ADA doesn’t apply to federal courts, which is both incorrect and legally dangerous. Worse, he suggested my inability to serve Anna—despite repeated, documented efforts and clear evidence of evasion—somehow undercuts my claim of harm. He implied my case might be dismissed for lack of service, completely ignoring that I’ve already spent over $500 just trying to participate under obstructive conditions.
My Rule 59(e) motion lays all of this bare and calls out the deeper issue: that rulings are being shaped not by law, but by an apparent need to shield judicial colleagues from scrutiny. I reminded the Court of Judge Osteen’s own confirmation testimony—where he promised impartiality and accountability—and contrasted that with what’s now playing out. I’m not asking for special treatment. I’m asking for fair treatment, transparent rules, and a process that doesn’t punish people for daring to speak the truth. If the Court can’t deliver that, then I will continue to press for accountability—both through the legal system and through public exposure. This isn’t just about this ruling. It’s about whether justice in this district is real or just something written on paper.