In yet another demonstration of judicial obstruction and procedural bad faith, the U.S. District Court has returned the $402.00 money order submitted by the Kevin Walker Estate for filing fees, claiming it was $3.00 short and that it was incorrectly made out to “Clerk of the Court” rather than “Clerk, U.S. District Court.”
This action by the Court raises serious concerns regarding its adherence to due process and procedural fairness. The Kevin Walker Estate has responded accordingly, sending a new $405.00 money order with the corrected payee information to ensure that no further administrative roadblocks can be used to delay the case. Additionally, a special deposit has been made with the court’s financial institution, reinforcing the commercial and contractual nature of the transaction.
Legal Implications: The Complaint Is Already Filed
Under Rule 5(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a document is deemed filed when it is delivered to the Clerk of the Court—not when the Clerk deems it convenient to accept. The Court’s attempt to delay or obstruct the processing of the complaint based on an alleged minor discrepancy in the payment is not only procedurally questionable but also raises concerns regarding intentional administrative obstruction.
The Kevin Walker Estate has fulfilled all legal obligations, and the Verified Complaint and supporting exhibits were lawfully filed at the moment they were delivered to the Clerk, as per established legal principles. The Court has a ministerial duty to enter the documents into the record and proceed accordingly.
Case Law Supporting Administrative Obstruction & Ministerial Duty to File
1. Administrative Obstruction & Clerk’s Duty to File
-
Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252 (1959)
“The right to file a lawsuit or legal action may not be obstructed by procedural barriers that deny access to the courts.”
- A clerk of court cannot arbitrarily reject filings or impose unnecessary administrative hurdles that restrict access to justice.
-
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007)
“A party has a right to have their filing accepted when it is properly submitted in accordance with court rules, and an error by court personnel does not deprive a party of their rights.”
- Any failure by court staff to process properly submitted documents constitutes administrative obstruction.
2. Ministerial Duty to File Once Delivered
-
United States v. Lombardo, 241 U.S. 73 (1916)
“A document is deemed filed when it is delivered to the proper official and received by the office required to process it.”
- The Clerk of Court has a ministerial, non-discretionary duty to accept and file documents upon delivery.
-
Rosenbaum v. Bauer, 120 U.S. 450 (1887)
“A clerk has no discretion to refuse to file a pleading or other legal document properly tendered for filing.”
- The filing process is ministerial, meaning the Clerk must accept and record all properly delivered filings.
-
Ex parte United States, 242 U.S. 27 (1916)
“Ministerial acts are those which a public officer is required to perform upon a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to their own judgment or opinion concerning the propriety of the act to be performed.”
- Filing a complaint is a ministerial duty; clerks have no lawful authority to obstruct or refuse the process.
3. Due Process Violation When Clerk Fails to File
-
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971)
“The right of access to the courts is fundamental and cannot be obstructed by arbitrary administrative or procedural barriers.”
- Court personnel who improperly reject a filing violate the filer’s due process rights.
-
McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (1992)
“A party cannot be forced to endure unnecessary procedural barriers when seeking legal relief.”
- Refusing to process a complaint because of a minor technicality amounts to improper obstruction.
Judicial Accountability and Next Steps
Given the ongoing pattern of delays and procedural inconsistencies, this latest incident further demonstrates the need for judicial oversight in ensuring due process and lawful procedure. If the Court continues to engage in bad faith tactics that obstruct access to justice, additional legal actions may be taken to hold all responsible parties accountable.
With the corrected payment and special deposit now made, the Verified Complaint and accompanying exhibits are expected to be docketed without further delay. The fight for due process, judicial integrity, and adherence to the rule of law continues, and the public and legal community will be watching closely as this case progresses.
Conclusion
The Kevin Walker Estate has fully complied with all legal filing requirements, and any failure by the Clerk of the Court to docket the case constitutes administrative obstruction and a violation of due process. Case law is clear: The moment documents are delivered, they are lawfully filed, and clerks have no discretion to refuse them. The Court must proceed accordingly, or further legal action may be necessary to enforce compliance.
