Imagine you take a case to federal court, because your constitutional rights have been violated.  You follow the rules, file your complaint, and expect the judge to fairly apply the law.  Instead, the court twists procedural rules to avoid even addressing your claims, dismissing your case without ever considering the merits.  Worse, when you appeal, the system closes the door on your ability to challenge this abuse—not because you’re wrong, but because judges are using procedural loopholes as weapons against litigants, particularly pro se plaintiffs.

This isn’t just a nightmare scenario—it’s exactly what’s happening in my case.  And, if federal judges get away with this, it could happen to anyone.

The Problem: A Judicial Shell Game to Block Constitutional Claims

I filed a Section 1983 lawsuit in federal court, asserting that government officials violated my constitutional rights.  Instead of properly analyzing the claims under the established legal standards, the district court judge, Judge Leeson, engaged in procedural trickery to dismiss my case without considering its merits.

Here’s how it works:

  1. Manipulating Rule 12(b)(1) (Jurisdictional Dismissals)
    • Courts are required to assume that all well-pleaded facts in the complaint are true when deciding a facial challenge under Rule 12(b)(1) (lack of jurisdiction).
    • Instead of following this rule, Judge Leeson engaged in fact-finding—something he is not allowed to do—and falsely claimed my case was about state records law, rather than the constitutional violations I actually alleged.
    • This manufactured a false jurisdictional issue and let the court evade federal review of my claims.
  2. Misapplying Rule 12(b)(6) (Failure to State a Claim)
    • Under Twombly and Iqbal, courts must assume facts in a complaint are true and only dismiss a case if the claims are not plausible.
    • Instead, Judge Leeson resolved disputed facts, argued outside the pleadings, and applied an improperly high pleading standard—treating the motion as if it were summary judgment rather than a simple motion to dismiss. See ECF 35 and 36.
    • This means the judge decided factual issues that should have been left for a jury, violating due process. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 US 83
  3. Weaponizing Procedural Technicalities to Block Appeals
    • After dismissing my case, the judge gave me the option to amend my complaint—but in a way that keeps me trapped in an unfair process.
    • When I appealed, the Third Circuit clerk questioned whether they even have jurisdiction, citing the judge’s offer to amend.  See 3rd Cir. ECF 7.
    • This forces me into a no-win scenario:  either accept an unfair ruling and try again under a rigged standard, or have my appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Why This Is More Than Just My Case—It’s a Crisis for Due Process

What’s happening in my case isn’t just a mistake—it’s part of a larger pattern of judicial misconduct that undermines every American’s right to due process.  This should alarm everyone, because:

✅ It creates a two-tiered system of justice—where powerful defendants (government officials, corporations) never have to answer for constitutional violations because courts invent ways to block cases before they start.

✅ It erodes the rule of law—by letting judges reframe claims and ignore clear legal standards, making it impossible to hold government actors accountable.

✅ It destroys access to justice for ordinary people—especially pro se litigants (those representing themselves), who often lack the resources to fight back against these procedural abuses.

✅ It sets a dangerous precedent—if courts can get away with gaslighting plaintiffs, distorting the law, and fabricating procedural barriers, then no one’s constitutional rights are safe.

What Needs to Happen Now

The Court of Appeals has a ministerial duty to ensure:

  • Judges do not fabricate procedural bars to evade constitutional adjudication.
  • Federal courts follow Supreme Court and circuit precedent when deciding jurisdictional and dismissal motions.
  • Pro se litigants receive fair treatment instead of being shut out of the judicial process.

This isn’t just about my case—it’s about whether the courts will continue allowing government officials to use legal loopholes to dodge accountability.  If the Third Circuit does nothing, it will greenlight a blueprint for courts to deny due process under color of law, making justice an illusion for anyone who challenges government misconduct.

Why This Matters to You

You may not think this affects you now—but if courts can manipulate procedures to avoid constitutional claims, it will only be a matter of time before you or someone you care about is denied justice the same way.

If we don’t hold the judiciary accountable, the legal system will remain rigged in favor of the powerful—and against regular citizens who try to assert their rights.

 

UPDATE AUGUST 2025:

I have filed motion to vacate this fraud on the court. If you believe in due process, fair courts, and the right to hold government officials accountable, then this case matters to you.

Stay informed. Demand accountability. The future of constitutional rights in federal courts depends on it.

www.ShowMeTheBallots.net
https://x.com/MrMillerSays

#ShowMeTheBallots