I’ve witnessed firsthand how procedural abuse can turn legitimate constitutional claims into an exhausting uphill battle. My lawsuit was filed to challenge government misconduct and protect constitutional rights, but instead of receiving a fair day in court, I’ve faced a relentless campaign of procedural tactics designed to suppress my claims, punish my advocacy, and drain my resources.
Ninety-five (95) filings. NO substantive rulings on the merits. NO hearings. NO answers. NO briefing schedule. NOTHING that advances the actual claims at the heart of the case. Instead, County of Lancaster, the Office of Open Records (OOR), their attorneys, and even the appellate clerk have weaponized procedural rules to create barriers at every step. Retaliatory motions, administrative overreach, and coordinated obfuscation have turned my case into sham litigation.
This isn’t just about me. It’s about holding government entities accountable when they abuse their power to silence dissent and avoid transparency. That’s why I’ve filed a motion with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals asking for sanctions, corrective relief, and supervisory review. See 3rd Cir. ECF 30. My motion details how these coordinated tactics have not only harmed me personally—financially, emotionally, and reputationally—but have also undermined the integrity of the judicial system.
The appellate clerk’s conduct is a prime example. The Clerk unilaterally listed my appeal for summary disposition, bypassing the required panel vote and removing it from normal judicial review. See ECF 11-1. This unlawful overreach was compounded by officers’ abuse of procedural tools like Rule 72 to deprive me of access to judicial review (see ECF 55 and 64) and threaten retaliatory sanctions (ECF 48, 70) to intimidate me into abandoning my case. These actions were designed to bury my claims, exhaust my resources, and send a chilling message to others who might challenge government misconduct.
What’s at stake here isn’t just my case—it’s the public’s trust in the judiciary. If government entities can manipulate procedural rules to avoid accountability, where does that leave ordinary citizens? For pro se litigants like me, the stakes are even higher. Without a legal team or institutional resources, we are especially vulnerable to these kinds of tactics. That’s why judicial intervention is critical—not just to address my harm, but to prevent this from happening to anyone else.
It is thus fitting that on MLK Jr’s birthday and Inauguration Day, January 20, 2025, I filed a motion for the court to impose sanctions on the County, OOR, their attorneys, and the appellate clerk, as well as to launch a transparent inquiry into the procedural breakdowns that allowed this to happen. I’m also seeking reforms to ensure that pro se litigants are protected from similar abuses in the future. The judiciary has a responsibility to act decisively against these tactics, not just to restore fairness in my case, but to reaffirm its role as a safeguard for constitutional rights.
This fight is bigger than me. It’s about ensuring that no one—whether they have a lawyer or not—has to endure this kind of procedural lawfare just to hold government actors accountable. If the courts don’t intervene now, it sets a dangerous precedent that makes justice increasingly out of reach for those who need it most.
Mike Miller