Opinion ID: 770341
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Civil Complaint

Text: 10 Plaintiffs brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against Judges O'Kelley and Story, Magistrate Judge Strother, most of the active and senior judges of this Court, 3 Assistant United States Attorney Leta, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, Richard Deane, Ted Robertson, an IRS agent who was allegedly involved in Pealock and Bolin's federal criminal trial, and unnamed law clerks and staff attorneys for this Court. Plaintiffs state that [t]he gravamen of plaintiffs' Complaint is that the defendant federal judges do not READ anything submitted by pro se litigants, thereby defrauding them of the judgments that are rightfully theirs. In addition, [t]his case also addresses perjury by a government witness before a grand jury, capricious prosecution, denial of the right to have a disinterested prosecutor, withholding of Brady material, and judicial dishonesty. 11 The complaint asserts that both this Court and the Northern District of Georgia treat pro se litigants differently than licensed attorneys in that magistrate judges in the district court make reports and recommendations which are then adopted by district judges who have not read the pro se pleadings. Further, the complaint alleges that [i]t has been clearly established that appellate court judges in the Eleventh Circuit routinely do not read pro se briefs, but allow staff attorneys to make 'summaries' for them instead. The plaintiffs base this assertion on the testimony of both former Chief Judges Joseph Hatchett and Gerald Tjoflat at a March 28, 1998 public hearing of the Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia. 12 Plaintiffs' complaint appears to allege that the failure of the defendant judges to read pro se pleadings violates their right to equal protection, denies them access to the courts, and amounts to obstruction of justice. In addition, the complaint appears to allege that this practice constitutes a fraud on the court and permitted Leta to present false testimony in the prosecution of Pealock and Bolin, thus perpetuating the fraud on the court. Finally, the complaint alleges that the defendant judges, court personnel, and U.S. Attorneys comprise an enterprise which persists in a pattern of racketeering activity to obstruct justice. 13 Plaintiffs' complaint seeks declarations that (1) pro se litigants are entitled to the same consideration in adjudication of their actions as any lawyer from any 'blue chip' law firm, (2) the practice of allowing staff attorneys to make presentations to appellate panels too involved in other things is unconstitutional, (3) the practice of issuing an Opinion without first reading the pleadings of a pro se litigant is unconstitutional, and (4) Defendant Judges Story and Strother are mentally incompetent by reason of bias. Plaintiffs also seek to enjoin defendants to provide (1) a report by this Court to Congress, (2) extensive discovery ... in order to uncover and document the fraud in the judgments rendered against them and the pathological bias of defendant federal district court judge Richard W. Story, defendant senior district court judge William C. O'Kelly [sic], and federal magistrate judge John R. Strother, Jr., and (3) an investigation by a grand jury into the criminal depredations of the defendants. Further, plaintiff Thompson seeks to void the judgment in Thompson v. United States, Case No. 1:97-cv-1814-WCO.