Most pro se litigants trust that if they follow the rules, the court will fairly apply the law. But here’s what really happens when a pro se litigant challenges a government entity in federal court:
Step 1: The Judge Rewrites Your Case
- Judges and government lawyers pretend your case is about something it’s not—mischaracterizing your constitutional claims as minor state-law disputes or procedural complaints that they can more easily dismiss.
- Example: In my case, I brought constitutional claims under Section 1983, but the judge framed them as a records dispute to make it look like I was in the wrong court.
Step 2: The Judge Fakes a Jurisdictional Problem
- Federal judges manufacture a fake jurisdictional defect so they can dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) (lack of jurisdiction) without even looking at the merits.
- Instead of assuming the facts in the complaint are true (as the law requires in a facial challenge under Rule 12), the judge pretends to find facts that support dismissal.
- This is illegal—judges are not allowed to engage in fact-finding at this stage. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 US 83
Step 3: The Judge Applies the Wrong Standard Under Rule 12(b)(6)
- If you survive the fake jurisdictional dismissal, the judge then dismisses under Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim)—but not by applying the correct plausibility standard from Twombly and Iqbal.
- Instead, the judge demands evidence at the pleading stage, resolves disputed facts in favor of the defendant, and treats the case like summary judgment—all things that are not allowed under Rule 12(b)(6).
Step 4: The Clerk Blocks Your Appeal
- If you try to appeal, the judge uses another trick: he offers you a chance to amend your complaint—not because they want you to fix it, but because it prevents immediate appellate review.
- Then, when you file your appeal, the circuit court clerk questions jurisdiction and delays or dismisses your case. See 3rd Cir. ECF 7.
The End Result? You’re Dismissed, Lied To, and Shut Out of Federal Court
- You never get a hearing of your constitutional claims.
- You never get discovery or a trial—your case is over before it starts.
- You walk away thinking maybe I didn’t plead my case well enough, when in reality, you were defrauded by the system itself.
Why This Is More Than Just My Case
This isn’t one bad judge—this is a systemic pattern in federal courts. Judges are collaborating with government defendants to block cases before they get off the ground, ensuring that constitutional claims never get heard.
This scam protects government misconduct and gives judges unchecked power to dismiss cases they don’t like—without accountability.
What Can Be Done?
- Expose the scam—pro se litigants need to know they’re being deceived before their case is dismissed.
- Push for appellate courts to intervene—mandamus relief is critical to stopping this abuse.
- Demand judicial accountability by filing a motion to vacate for fraud on the court—judges must follow the ministerial duty to apply correct legal standards in Rule 12 motions. Failing to do so creates a void judgment.
Final Thought
This isn’t just about my case. If federal judges are allowed to rewrite cases, fake jurisdictional defects, and block appeals, no one’s constitutional rights are safe. The courts are supposed to uphold justice—not rig the process to shut people out.
If you’re a pro se litigant, read this carefully—this is how they’ll try to dismiss you. Know the con before they pull it on you.
Mike Miller – March 19, 2025