June 5 was another infuriating example of how process is being used to obstruct rather than facilitate justice. Magistrate Judge Auld denied every pending motion I had filed: my urgent request to strike his prior orders, my motion for alternative service, and both the CM/ECF and recusal motions—despite the fact that the docket had shown these matters were referred to District Judge Osteen. When I called the case manager to question the mismatch, I was told they “don’t know” why it showed that and later claimed it was a clerical error. That same day, they quietly changed the docket to reflect that the referrals were “inadvertent,” after already issuing the denials.
Each denial relied on the same procedural excuse: that I failed to file a “separate” brief under Local Rule 7.3(a), despite the fact that my motions already included full legal arguments and met the substantive requirements of Rule 7.2(a). Auld dismissed everything as deficient without addressing any of the actual issues I raised. He also mischaracterized my e-filing motion, claiming I never cited my disability, even though I had—both in the motion and in prior filings. Then he brushed off the timing of his May 26 order—issued on Memorial Day—saying it was just a matter of availability, not prejudice.
In his ruling on alternative service, Auld claimed I didn’t exhaust reasonable efforts, even though I documented multiple attempts and cited relevant rules. He said I failed to support my claims with citations or record evidence—completely ignoring that I had submitted a sworn verification under oath, which is valid evidence, especially for a pro se litigant at the pre-service stage. The dismissal treated my verified statements as meaningless, reinforcing the sense that these rulings were not based on substance but designed to shut me down before the case could proceed.
It was clear by the end of the day that no matter how thoroughly I followed the rules or how much evidence I presented, the outcome was predetermined. These weren’t neutral decisions—they were tactical dismissals, aimed at shutting down my case before it could proceed.
The next day, I filed a formal Rule 72(a) Objection to preserve the record and push back against what has become a pattern of improper jurisdiction, docket manipulation, and repeated retaliation against me as a pro se litigant.