On February 21, 2025, I filed a motion demanding that Judge Joseph Leeson issue findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 52(a), when ruling on Defendants’ motions to dismiss in my First Amendment case. For 90 days, Leeson has refused to rule on these motions, effectively stalling my case and preventing me from moving forward with discovery. This kind of judicial inaction isn’t neutral—it’s a tactic that benefits government defendants by allowing them to evade accountability without ever addressing the merits of my claims.
My motion argues that this delay is a de facto dismissal of my constitutional claims without justification, violating due process and enabling procedural evasion under color of law. Supreme Court precedent, including Zwickler v. Koota (1967), makes clear that federal courts must adjudicate constitutional claims and cannot sidestep their duty through procedural gamesmanship. If the court intends to dispose of my claims, it must explain why.
Even more troubling is Judge Leeson’s inconsistency. In Bitler v. Robeson Township, a 2024 case, Leeson ruled that in First Amendment challenges, the burden shifts to the government to justify any restriction on speech. Yet, in my case, Leeson refuses to even compel the government to respond—directly contradicting his own precedent. If he now departs from Bitler, he owes the public a reasoned explanation.
My motion requests that the court rule on the motions, issue findings under Rule 52(a), and, if necessary, reassign the case to a judge who will fulfill their duty. If this kind of procedural obstruction can happen in a First Amendment case, it can happen to anyone. The government and judiciary should not be working together to bury constitutional claims in red tape.
Mike Miller
www.ShowMeTheBallots.net