by Adrienne Rockenhaus
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE KAREN NELSON MOORE:
Your Honor has long been the conscience of the Sixth Circuit regarding the rights of the incarcerated. You have written extensively on the necessity of providing access to the courts for those who cannot speak for themselves, most notably in your opinion in Stiltner v. Hart, where you protected a cognitively impaired prisoner from being silenced by procedural deadlines. You understand that when the prison doors lock, the Constitution must not be locked out with them.
The Clerk’s Office has locked the door.
In United States v. Rockenhaus (Case No. 25-1974), the Defendant is a disabled veteran suffering from a documented Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and seizures. On September 4, 2025, he suffered a Grand Mal seizure on the floor of the federal duty court after being assaulted by U.S. Marshals.
The Whitmore Violation
Under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990), a “Next Friend” may file on behalf of a defendant who is incapacitated. This is a vital safeguard for the brain-injured and the medically neglected.
On November 19, 2025, I attempted to file a “Life or Death Emergency Motion” as well as a supplement to that emergency motion, as Next Friend, attaching medical records and video evidence of his incapacity.
The Administrative Blockade The motion never reached your chambers. It was intercepted by Alicia Harden (Chief Legal Advisor to the Clerk), who rejected it “unfiled” with the following statement:
“Please be advised that as a non-lawyer, you may not represent another individual… This is true even if you may act as next friend…” (See Rejection Letter)
The Question for Judge Moore
Ms. Harden is not a doctor. She is not a Judge. Yet, she unilaterally determined that Conrad Rockenhaus, a man seizing to death in a prison cell, was competent enough to file his own motions. She overruled Whitmore from the intake desk.
If the Clerk can block a “Next Friend” motion before a Judge ever sees it, then the right to access the courts has been abolished for the disabled.
We ask Your Honor to inquire: Why is the Clerk’s Office practicing medicine and screening out constitutional claims from the “Shadow Docket“?
Thank you for your attention to this concerning pattern,
Adrienne Rockenhaus
THE EVIDENCE:
- See the Emergency Motion Proving Incapacity (Rejected)
- See the Supplement to the Emergency Motion (Rejected)
- See the Clerk’s Letter Denying “Next Friend” Status
As a disabled Veteran I am absolutely appalled that a clerk feels she has the authority to make this decision. The prisoner has commitment a crime. YES. And has to pay for said crime, however this doesn’t remove him from his rights. I pray the court does the right and legal thing to help him , not what the clerk believes should happen.