6. On November 12, 2025, Magistrate Lammens entered a 15 page Order (DOC 14) concluding as follows:
(1) Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3) is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint on or before December 12, 2025. The second amended complaint must comply with all pleading requirements contained in Rules 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and those contained in the Local Rules of the Middle District of Florida. Failure to comply with this Order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED as moot, in light of the filing of the Amended Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3).
7. Magistrate Lammens' Order (DOC 14) was entered on November 12, 2025, which is 96 days after the Complaint (DOC 1) was filed on August 8, 2025, and 92 days after the Amended Complaint (DOC 10) was filed on August 12, 2025.
8. Magistrate Lammens' Order (DOC 14) was entered 57 days after the Special Election held September 16, 2025 in the City of Ocala, Florida.
9. Therefore, the facts pled in paragraph 7 and paragraph 8 show a prima facia case that Judge Chappell and Magistrate Lammens engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts, in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 351. This violation alone should result in their removal from office.
10. Previously Magistrate Lammens was rejected January 3, 2017 by the U.S. Senate on his nomination April 28, 2016 to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, to fill a vacancy of U.S. Judge John Richard Smoak. On May 29, 2015, all of Judge Smoak's cases were reassigned to other judges by an administrative order issued by Chief Judge M. Casey Rodgers. The record in this case shows the U.S. Senate was justified in rejecting Lammens' nomination.
My Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (Doc 15) was accompanied by three exhibits:
EXHIBIT 1: U.S. Department of Justice complaint by Neil J. Gillespie alleging U.S. Judge Sheri Polster Chappell and U.S. Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens violated 18 U.S.C. § 241, Conspiracy against rights, submission number 665324-SWD.
EXHIBIT 2: NEIL JOSEPH GILLESPIE v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Florida Fifth Judicial Circuit, Marion County
DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
CASE 2020-CF-2417
Filing # 233696032 E-Filed 10/15/2025 01:27:16 PM
EXHIBIT 3: Tim Reagan, Federal Judicial Center, February 20, 2025: (Exhibit 3a)
This report compiles local rules and procedures in the ninety-four district courts on electronic filing by self-represented litigants. More than two thirds of the courts permit self-represented litigants to use the court’s electronic filing system at least on a case-by-case basis. Twenty-nine courts (31%) generally prohibit electronic filing by self-represented litigants. The Northern District of Texas generally requires it. Ten other courts (11%) generally permit it. The remaining fifty-four courts (57%) permit self-represented litigants to request permission to use the electronic filing system. (Exhibit 3b)
A 2022 report included a survey of rules and procedures and interviews with court staff in a selection of appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts: Federal Courts’ Electronic Filing by Pro Se Litigants. (Exhibit 3c)
No comments:
Post a Comment