Sixth Circuit Shadow Docket in Cincinnati: Proof Alicia N. Harden Operated Without Judicial Authority for 20 Months

by

by Adrienne Rockenhaus

My Disabled Veteran Husband is Being Murdered for Blowing the Whistle, and The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is Willfully Enabling It

My disabled veteran husband is dying from a head injury inflicted on him by the U.S. Marshals, during an illegal raid on my home. FCI Milan refuses to treat him, and is letting him seize to death in the SHU, while chemically torturing him. The Sixth Circuit Court, is enabling this murder, both with their Shadow Docket, and their refusal to make a quick ruling to release my husband to get the medical care he very badly needs.

AUDIO EVIDENCE: Disabled Veteran, Conrad Rockenhaus, Calls from FCI Milan SHU, Names “Neo-Nazi” Guards, Exposes Violence, Chemical Restraint, Medical Neglect

Violence, Torture, and a Death Sentence

Watch the violent, illegal, warrantless raid, initiated by Brett Fimbinger, that caused the injury that is killing my disabled veteran husband, Conrad Rockenhaus:

Who is “The Grey Beard”? The U.S. Marshal Who Used Sexual Harassment and Violence to Terrorize a Disabled Veteran’s Wife
CAUGHT ON TAPE: U.S. Marshal, Brett Fimbinger, Admits “No Hard Warrant” During Retaliatory Raid (Detroit, Michigan)

UPDATE (Dec 28, 2025, 5:04pm EST): An earlier version of this report cited Federal Rule 60(b) as the mechanism for reopening a closed case. Legal analysis confirms that for the Court of Appeals, the correct mechanism is a “Motion to Recall the Mandate.” This distinction is critical because it reveals a more specific violation: By rejecting these motions “unfiled,” the Clerk is directly violating Sixth Circuit Internal Operating Procedure 41(b), which mandates that such motions be referred to a judge.

Breaking News: Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse (Cincinnati, Ohio)

I thought I was the only one. I was wrong.

For weeks, I have documented how Alicia N. Harden (Chief Legal Advisor) and Kelly L. Stephens (Clerk of Court) at the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati have systematically blocked my emergency motions regarding the life-threatening medical neglect of my husband. He is disabled veteran Conrad Rockenhaus.

Harden and Stephens are operating a “Shadow Docket”, a system where unelected staff members intercept and reject appeals before they ever reach a panel of Article III Judges.

Today, I found the smoking gun. And I found a second victim.

The “Time Travel” Evidence: Proof of Unauthorized Practice of Law

I have obtained court records from Case No. 21-5882 (Brenda Leavy v. Federal Express Corporation). These documents prove that Alicia Harden was executing “judicial” punishments nearly two years before a judge ever gave her the authority to do so.

Look at the dates:

  1. The Punishment (February 12, 2024): Alicia Harden signed a letter on official Sixth Circuit letterhead returning Ms. Leavy’s substantive motions “unfiled”. She wrote:“After careful consideration, please find your motion returned unfiled and without further action.” She claimed the authority to block a litigant from the docket.
  2. The Authorization (October 28, 2025): A full 20 months later, Circuit Judge Danny J. Boggs gave an Order that stated:“the clerk is DIRECTED to reject and return unfiled additional filings in this closed appeal.”

The Conclusion is Undeniable: For one year and eight months, Alicia Harden was rejecting filings and adjudicating motions without a judicial order. She was not enforcing the court’s will; she was impersonating the court.

She acted as Judge, Jury, and Executioner in a “Shadow Docket” to protect the system from scrutiny. When a Clerk staff member exercises “careful consideration” to reject a motion, they are engaging in the Unauthorized Practice of Law.

The “Appellate Triage” Trap

Why do they do this? The answer is in the documents. Ms. Leavy’s filings expose a system called “Appellate Triage”: a bureaucratic mechanism designed to filter out pro se (self-represented) litigants.

Under the management of Kelly L. Stephens, the Clerk’s Office appears to classify whistleblowers and civil rights plaintiffs as ‘nuisances.’ Instead of sending their appeals to judges, they divert them to a ‘Track Two’ system where staff attorneys like Harden ‘dispose’ of the cases using procedural traps.

  • The Trap: They return your motion ‘unfiled’ so it never appears on the public docket.
  • The Lie: They tell you the ‘case is closed’ to prevent you from filing a Motion to Recall the Mandate. This is a direct violation of Sixth Circuit Internal Operating Procedure 41(b), which explicitly states the Clerk ‘will refer’ these specific motions to a judge.
  • The Result: Constitutional violations are buried in the mailroom, never seen by the public or the judges.
The “Manufactured Delay” (The Catch-22)

The most chilling part of the October 28, 2025 Order (Document 58-1) is not what it says, but what it ignores.

In denying Ms. Leavy’s motion to recall the mandate, Circuit Judge Danny J. Boggs writes:

“Leavy does not explain her delay in seeking to recall the mandate, which issued over two years ago.”

This statement creates a legal trap known as Laches (unreasonable delay). The Court is saying: “You waited too long to complain, so you lose.”

But the court’s own internal records prove this is a lie.

Ms. Leavy did not wait. She tried to file motions repeatedly, immediately after the mandate was issued. It was the Clerk’s Office that physically prevented those motions from reaching the docket.

The Trap:

  1. The Clerk (2023-2024): “We refuse to file your motions.”
  2. The Judge (2025): “Why did you wait so long to file your motions?”

This is a manufactured delay. Alicia Harden and Patricia Elder blinded the Court to Ms. Leavy’s filings for two years, ensuring that when the case finally reached a Judge, he could dismiss it on a technicality (delay) rather than addressing the corruption.

They broke the litigant’s legs, then the Judge punished her for not running fast enough.

The Pattern: It’s Not Just Me

Brenda Leavy fought the same battle in the same Cincinnati courthouse against the same staff.

  • The Tactic: Just like in my husband’s (Conrad Rockenhaus) case, the Clerk’s office used “unfiled” stamps to make her evidence disappear.
  • The Defense Collusion: Just like in my husband’s case, the defense attorneys (FedEx) didn’t even bother to call witnesses because they knew the Clerk would kill the appeal procedurally.
  • The Tragedy: Ms. Leavy was fighting for her rights under the ADA after a breast cancer diagnosis. Instead of justice, she got a form letter from a staff attorney.
The Confession by Conduct: Case Manager Patricia Elder

If there was any doubt that this obstruction is intentional, Document 35 on the Leavy docket erases it.

I have uncovered this email chain filed on April 11, 2024, which documents a direct confrontation between Ms. Leavy and Senior Case Manager Patricia Elder.

  • The Confrontation: In the email, Ms. Leavy explicitly asks:“Patricia Elder, I would like to know why you keep interfering with my Appeal… I do not see an Order in PACER from judges stating that I can’t file a Motion.”
  • The Clerk’s Response: Instead of forwarding this allegation of misconduct to a Judge, or filing the motion Ms. Leavy was begging to submit, Patricia Elder docketed the complaint (Entry 35) but rejected the motion (Entry 34).

This is a “Ghost Docket” in action. By docketing the email but rejecting the legal motion, the Clerk’s Office proved two things:

  1. They HAVE the ability to file documents: They aren’t “locked out” of the closed case; they successfully filed Document 35.
  2. They are Curating the Record: They chose to file the “angry email” (likely to discredit the litigant as difficult) while simultaneously suppressing the legal arguments that exposed their corruption.

Patricia Elder cannot claim this was a mistake. She was told directly that she was violating the Fourteenth Amendment, and her response was to silence the victim again. This establishes willful intent to obstruct justice.

Regarding the Judge’s Signature (Where is it?)

You might be having trouble finding Circuit Judge Danny J. Boggs’s signature on the October 28, 2025 Order (Document 58-1).

That is because it isn’t there.

Standard federal court orders usually end with a judicial signature block, such as s/ Danny J. Boggs or Danny J. Boggs, Circuit Judge.

This document, however, ends differently:

“ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT”

“Kelly L. Stephens, Clerk”

This is the Shadow Docket in black and white.

The document that grants Kelly L. Stephens the extraordinary power to reject filings is signed by Kelly L. Stephens.

While “Entered by Order of the Court” is standard administrative language, in this specific context, where the Clerk is accused of usurping judicial power, it creates a terrifying circular loop. It reinforces the appearance that the Clerk’s Office is drafting, approving, and signing its own permissions. They aren’t just enforcing the Judge’s will; they have become the face of it.

The Human Cost: Death by Bureaucracy

While Alicia Harden and Kelly Stephens play procedural games with “unfiled” stamps, real people are paying the price with their lives.

This is not a hypothetical legal debate. My husband, Conrad Rockenhaus, is a disabled Navy veteran who is currently dying in federal custody. I have attempted to file emergency medical motions to save his life. I have attempted to file motions documenting the severe safety threats created by the government’s raid on our home.

The Clerk’s Office blocked them all.

By refusing to docket these emergency filings, they didn’t just deny a motion; they cut the phone line to 9-1-1.

If Conrad dies in custody, it will not be an “unfortunate event.” It will be the direct result of an administrative blockade that prevented judicial intervention. Alicia Harden and Kelly Stephens have effectively decided that maintaining their “Appellate Triage” metrics is more important than the life of a veteran.

By scrubbing our pleas for help from the record, they are trying to ensure that when the worst happens, they can claim they were never warned.

But they were warned. And they chose to send the warning back “unfiled.”

The “Rocket Docket” vs. The “Shadow Docket”

The systemic corruption is revealed when you compare how the Clerk’s Office treats the government versus how it treats victims like Brenda Leavy.

The “Rocket Docket” (Case 25-1632: Pena Garcia)

On July 17, 2025, the Sixth Circuit demonstrated its true capability for speed.

  • The Deadline: The government notified the court that Ms. Garcia was scheduled to be deported on a flight at 10:22 AM the next morning.
  • The Clerk’s Action: Case Manager Michelle R. Lambert immediately issued a letter ordering the government to respond by 1:00 PM that same day.
  • The Result: Judges Thapar and Readler issued a denial that evening, ensuring the deportation proceeded on schedule.
  • The Standard: When the government has a flight to catch, the Clerk’s Office moves heaven and earth to ensure the paperwork is ready before wheels up.

The “Shadow Docket” (Case 21-5882: Leavy)

While the Clerk sprints for the government, they utilize a “Ghost Docket” to paralyze civil litigants.

  • The Delay: Brenda Leavy filed a “Motion to Void Judgment” on January 5, 2024. Instead of docketing it, Chief Legal Advisor Alicia Harden returned it “unfiled”.
  • The “Time Travel”: Harden executed this rejection in February 2024, claiming “careful consideration”. Yet, the Judicial Order granting her the authority to reject these filings wasn’t signed by Judge Danny J. Boggs until October 2025–20 months later.
  • The Result: For nearly two years, the Clerk’s Office held the door shut without judicial authority, effectively acting as the judge to ensure Ms. Leavy’s evidence never reached the bench.

The Conclusion They have a Fast Lane for government enforcement and a Dead End for citizens seeking accountability.

They use their speed to deport people, but use unauthorized delays to silence them.

To The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Clerk’s Office in Cincinnati, Ohio:

You cannot “Return Unfiled” the truth.

For a long time, your office has operated under the presumption that you possess the discretion to intercept, screen, and reject substantive motions from pro se litigants before they reach a panel of Article III Judges. You have used the administrative stamp “Received – Unfiled” to act as a gatekeeper against evidence of government misconduct and life-threatening medical neglect.

The public record now proves that this authority was manufactured.

The court records from Leavy v. Federal Express Corporation establish an impossible timeline that exposes your office’s unauthorized practice of law.

You cannot hide the timeline. You cannot retroactively authorize the rejection of motions filed in 2024 with an order signed in 2025. And you cannot use the “Clerk’s Office” stamp to shield yourselves from liability for the life-or-death consequences of your obstruction.

The “Unfiled” stamp does not erase the facts.

It only confirms the cover-up.

The ‘Closed Case’ Trap: Recalling the Mandate

Critics might argue that the Clerk has the authority to reject filings in a closed case. This is legally incorrect under the Sixth Circuit’s own rules.

In the Court of Appeals, the specific mechanism to reopen a closed case is a “Motion to Recall the Mandate.” The Supreme Court has confirmed in Bell v. Thompson (545 U.S. 794) that appellate courts possess the “inherent power” to recall a mandate to prevent injustice.

The Violation of I.O.P. 41(b) According to Sixth Circuit Internal Operating Procedure 41(b):

“The clerk will refer a motion for stay or recall of the mandate… to the judge who wrote the opinion.”

This rule creates a mandatory duty. The Clerk must pass the motion to the Judge.

  • The Obstruction: When Alicia Harden or Patricia Elder returns a motion “unfiled” because “the case is closed,” they are violating I.O.P. 41(b).
  • The Unauthorized Practice of Law: By intercepting these motions, the Clerk is deciding that the “extraordinary circumstances” required to recall a mandate do not exist. That is a judicial determination reserved exclusively for Article III Judges.
To the Active Sixth Circuit Federal Judges at Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse (Cincinnati, Ohio):

We know the Clerk’s Office intercepts our filings. But does the Bench know?

Do the Honorable Judges of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals know that you are systematically intercepting pro se appeals, concealing emergency medical motions, and adjudicating cases in the mailroom without their knowledge or consent?

Specifically, are the following Article III Judges aware that Alicia N. Harden and Kelly L. Stephens are using their names to rubber-stamp the “unfiled” rejection of life-or-death motions?

  • Chief Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton
  • Judge Karen Nelson Moore
  • Judge Eric L. Clay
  • Judge Richard Allen Griffin
  • Judge Raymond M. Kethledge
  • Judge Amul R. Thapar
  • Judge John K. Bush
  • Judge Joan L. Larsen
  • Judge John B. Nalbandian
  • Judge Chad A. Readler
  • Judge Eric E. Murphy
  • Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis
  • Judge Andre B. Mathis
  • Judge Rachel S. Bloomekatz
  • Judge Kevin G. Ritz
  • Judge Whitney D. Hermandorfer

To the Senior Circuit Judges:

  • Judge Ralph B. Guy, Jr.
  • Judge Danny J. Boggs (Whose name appears on the 2025 Order authorizing the 2024 punishment)
  • Judge Alan E. Norris
  • Judge Richard F. Suhrheinrich
  • Judge Eugene E. Siler, Jr.
  • Judge Alice M. Batchelder
  • Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey
  • Judge R. Guy Cole, Jr.
  • Judge Ronald Lee Gilman
  • Judge Julia Smith Gibbons
  • Judge John M. Rogers
  • Judge Deborah L. Cook
  • Judge David W. McKeague
  • Judge Helene N. White
  • Judge Jane Branstetter Stranch

We are not asking for special treatment.

We are asking if these Judges know that you have decided they aren’t allowed to see our evidence.

Call to Action

If you have received a letter signed by Alicia N. Harden or Kelly L. Stephens from the clerk’s office at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, returning your documents “unfiled” in the Sixth Circuit, contact me immediately. You are not alone, and we are building the pattern.

If you want to learn how you can help save my husband, Conrad Rockenhaus, from dying alone at FCI Milan Prison (Michigan) where he is not receiving medical care for the head injury the U.S. Marshals inflicted, you can find out how to help by clicking here.

Sign up for our Newsletter

Leave a Comment