Court Clerks Providing Procedural Cover for Activist Judges?

I’m Michael Miller, a pro se litigant from Lancaster, Pennsylvania, challenging what I see as an abuse of power by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Clerk’s Office. Without judicial direction, the Clerk’s Office recently stayed my appeal and marked it for possible summary action—moves I believe are unlawful and violate my right to a fair appellate process.

This appeal stems from a case I filed against Lancaster County for First and Fourteenth Amendment violations. The stakes are high, not only because of the personal impact but because the case directly affects a related lawsuit I’ve filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which raises similar civil rights issues. A quick resolution is crucial to prevent conflicting rulings, so I asked the Third Circuit to expedite my appeal. Instead of moving things forward, the Clerk’s Office, without judicial directive, stayed the case and listed it for possible dismissal—decisions they don’t have the authority to make .

On October 29, I was notified that my appeal was being considered for summary action, meaning the court might dismiss it without full briefing. The notice referred to the court’s internal rules but failed to specify any grounds for this decision, leaving me in the dark about why my case might be dismissed. As a pro se litigant, I’ve worked hard over the past two years to get these issues heard, and now, I’m being denied a full and fair opportunity to present my arguments. Due process demands more than vague administrative actions in cases involving fundamental rights.

In my filings, I’ve argued that the Clerk exceeded its role. According to Third Circuit Local Rule 27 and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, clerical authority is limited to purely administrative tasks, not substantive case decisions like staying an appeal or setting it up for summary action. Such decisions belong to the judicial panel. Yet, in my case, the Clerk acted without authorization, disregarding the procedural safeguards meant to protect due process .

To address this, I’m formally requesting that the court overturn the Clerk’s actions, reinstate my briefing schedule, and clarify the limits of clerical authority to prevent future overreach. I’m also seeking $4,000 in damages for the time, stress, and resources I’ve spent on this procedural fight. For someone representing themselves, these battles take time and resources that should have gone toward advancing my case, not dealing with administrative overreach. If clerks are allowed to take actions like these, unchecked, it sets a dangerous precedent that could limit access to justice for others as well.

This situation underscores a bigger issue of where clerical authority should end and judicial authority begin. Clerks are vital to court operations, but their power must have limits, especially when due process is at stake. I’m not the only pro se litigant to face procedural obstacles like these, and if we allow boundaries to blur, we risk eroding the protections that ensure fair treatment in our courts.

This legal battle has shown me how challenging it can be to navigate the system without a lawyer. My case is a call to preserve procedural integrity and transparency in the courts, to make sure everyone—whether represented by counsel or not—gets a fair chance. The Third Circuit’s response to my challenge will show whether the system is willing to protect that fairness for all.

My appeal goes beyond just my case; it’s about safeguarding a just process for everyone who comes after me.

Appreciate what you’re reading? Be sure to share it!

Have a story? Break it at LibertyLens.News! Become a Contributor.

Support platforms, like The Liberty Lens, that enable independent grassroots journalism. Donate here.