Petitioner Joshua DeAnthony Woodson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, respectfully petitions this Court for a panel rehearing under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40. In support, Petitioner states as follows:

On July 30, 2026, this Court entered an order denying Petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus (Doc. 42). The Court found that Petitioner had not carried the "demanding burden" required for mandamus relief. Petitioner respectfully submits that the Court's ruling may have been based on multiple errors of fact and an incomplete record. The Court appears to have overlooked several critical facts that make it impossible for Petitioner to "present those objections to the district judge" as the Court suggested. Petitioner respectfully submits that these omissions, if they occurred, may constitute errors of fact warranting rehearing under Rule 40.

Specifically, the Court appears to have overlooked: (1) the filing bar (Dkt. 91 and Dkt. 105) that bars Petitioner from filing any document in the district court; (2) the PACER lockout that prevented Petitioner from accessing his own case for over five months; (3) the denial of e-filing access; (4) Judge Eskridge's 146 days of silence in response to Petitioner's emergency pleas; (5) the incomplete transcript (Dkt. 103) that may not capture the full record; (6) the "NO ACTION TAKEN" documents that were removed from the record; and (7) evidence of judicial bias and bad faith litigation tactics by Defendants.

A. The Filing Bar (Dkt. 91).

On March 20, 2026, Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho entered Docket No. 91, which bars Petitioner from submitting any document without prior court permission and directs the Clerk of Court to reject all submissions from Petitioner unless the Court has explicitly authorized the filing. Dkt. 91 at 5, ¶¶ (a)-(c). The order was entered sua sponte—without any motion from any party, without prior written notice, and without affording Petitioner any opportunity to respond. Petitioner contends that this violates Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195-96 (5th Cir. 1993), which requires notice and an opportunity to respond before imposing filing restrictions on a pro se litigant.

B. The Scheduling Order (Dkt. 92).

Four days after entering the Filing Bar Order, the same magistrate judge entered Docket No. 92, a Scheduling Order that requires Petitioner to file multiple documents by specific dates, including:

• Amended pleadings and joinder of parties by April 20, 2026;
• Expert reports by May 20, 2026;
• Complete discovery by July 6, 2026;
• A joint pretrial order by August 5, 2026;
• Dismissal of the action at a Docket Call on August 18, 2026 for failure to comply.

C. The Orders Are Allegedly Irreconcilable.

Petitioner contends that Dkt. 91 prohibits him from filing anything, while Dkt. 92 requires him to file multiple documents by specific dates. Petitioner submits that he cannot comply with Dkt. 92 without violating Dkt. 91. He cannot seek relief from Dkt. 91 because any such request would itself be a "filing" subject to rejection. Petitioner contends that this Catch-22 is not merely inconvenient—it is a procedural trap that denies him any meaningful opportunity to prosecute his case.

D. The Filing Bar Remains in Effect (Dkt. 105).

On July 9, 2026, the district court entered Docket No. 105, which states: "The Clerk shall reject all submissions from Woodson unless explicitly authorized." This confirms that the filing bar remains in effect. Petitioner has never received authorization to file any document in the district court.

E. The Mandamus Petition and This Court's Order.

On April 30, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus challenging Dkt. 91 and Dkt. 92. On July 30, 2026, this Court denied the petition (Doc. 42). The Court stated:

"Woodson must first present those objections to the district judge. And to the extent he challenges the district court's own interlocutory rulings, his case remains pending and those rulings may ordinarily be reviewed after final judgment."

Doc. 42 at 2.

Petitioner respectfully submits that the Court's mandamus order may have overlooked the critical fact that Petitioner cannot file any objections or motions in the district court because of Dkt. 91 and Dkt. 105. The filing bar makes it impossible for Petitioner to seek the relief the Court suggested he should pursue.

Petitioner submits that this, if true, is not a minor oversight—it is a fundamental error of fact that goes to the heart of the Court's decision. The Court appears to have assumed Petitioner had a remedy in the district court. Petitioner submits that he does not. The district court has effectively silenced him. This fact was brought to the Court's attention in Petitioner's filings, but it appears the Court may have overlooked it.

On October 1, 2025, this Court granted Petitioner in forma pauperis (IFP) status (Dkt. 4), finding that he is unemployed, has no income, and cannot afford court costs. Despite this determination, Petitioner was required to pay for access to the PACER system to view orders, motions, and filings in his own case. As a result, Petitioner accumulated a PACER balance of $58.70. On March 10, 2026, the PACER Service Center locked Petitioner out of his account because he could not pay the balance. He was unable to access his own docket, view court orders, or retrieve filings for weeks.

On March 17, 2026, Petitioner contacted the PACER Service Center and was granted an extension until March 26, 2026, to pay the balance or request a waiver. The extension was granted with the notice: "An additional extension will not be available." Petitioner's motion to waive PACER fees was filed with the district court. The district court did not rule on that motion. To this day, Petitioner's PACER account remains locked. The balance has grown to over $130. He has been locked out of his own case for over five months.

Additionally, Petitioner was denied e-filing access based on vague "information security concerns." Dkt. 30 at 4. No specific security risk was identified. No evidence was presented that Petitioner had ever misused any electronic system. Petitioner contends that this denial, combined with the PACER lockout, may constitute a denial of access to the courts in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the First Amendment right to petition.

On March 20, 2026, and again on March 23, 2026, Petitioner sent emergency pleas directly to District Judge Charles Eskridge's chambers, begging for intervention before his home was sold at auction. These pleas were submitted through the Court's official channels and were directed to Judge Eskridge's case manager and chambers staff. Both pleas were met with absolute silence.

As of the date of this filing — August 13, 2026 — one hundred forty-six (146) days have passed since Petitioner's first plea. Judge Eskridge has never responded. His chambers have never acknowledged receipt. No order was entered. No hearing was scheduled. No relief was granted. The auction proceeded on March 3, 2026. Petitioner submits that this silence, combined with the filing bar, may constitute a denial of access to the courts in violation of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

The March 20, 2026 hearing was recorded by the court's Electronic Recording Operator (ERO) system and via Zoom. The official transcript (Dkt. 103) may be incomplete and may not reflect the full record. The written transcript may not capture tone of voice, facial expressions, interruptions, laughter, or visual display of exhibits. Petitioner alleges that the transcript may not fully capture Magistrate Judge Ho's apology to white defense counsel for having to "tolerate" a Black pro se litigant.

Petitioner cannot request the audio or video from the district court because Dkt. 91 and Dkt. 105 bar him from filing any document. Petitioner submits that the Zoom video and audio recording are necessary to correct any omissions in the written transcript and to provide a complete and accurate record for appellate review, as recognized by this Court in United States v. Crouch, 84 F.3d 1497, 1500 n.2 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

On multiple occasions, Petitioner submitted filings to this Court that were marked "DOCUMENT RECEIVED - NO ACTION TAKEN" and never docketed. These filings contained arguments material to this appeal and were removed from the record without explanation. These documents include: (1) Motion to Stay District Court Proceedings (filed June 2, 2026); (2) Motion to Compel Transcript (filed June 2, 2026); (3) Statement of Issues (filed May 8, 2026); and (4) DKT-13 Transcript Order Form (filed May 8, 2026).

These documents were never added to the docket. Consequently, the panel of judges who ruled on Petitioner's mandamus petition never saw them. The arguments contained in these filings—particularly regarding the district court's filing bar and the impossibility of seeking relief in that court—were therefore not considered. Petitioner submits that this may constitute a denial of due process and a denial of meaningful appellate review.

The Court's mandamus order stated: "Nor has he identified facts suggesting the personal, extrajudicial bias required under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Nothing he alleges 'reveal[s] an opinion based on an extrajudicial source' or 'demonstrate[s] such a high degree of antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible.'" Doc. 42 at 2 (quoting United States v. Scroggins, 485 F.3d 824, 829-30 & n.19 (5th Cir. 2007)).

Petitioner respectfully submits that this finding may have overlooked critical evidence of bias and bad faith that Petitioner presented:

• Magistrate Judge Ho's alleged apology to opposing counsel: During the March 20, 2026 pretrial conference, Petitioner alleges that Magistrate Judge Ho apologized to white defense counsel for having to "tolerate" Joshua Woodson, a Black pro se litigant.
• The alleged rejection/destruction of 20 filings: Before the March 20, 2026 pretrial conference, Magistrate Judge Ho rejected, terminated, or, as alleged, physically destroyed 20 of Petitioner's 27 filings. She then cited those same filings in the Filing Bar Order (Dkt. 91) as evidence of "bombardment." Dkt. 91 at 1.
• The Zoom link trap: Petitioner alleges that Magistrate Judge Ho withheld the Zoom link from Petitioner until the morning of the March 20, 2026 pretrial conference. Petitioner was forced to contact the Court's case manager at 7:02 AM to request the link. He received it at 8:18 AM—42 minutes before the hearing. Petitioner alleges that defense counsel received their credentials automatically.
• Defendants' alleged bad faith tactics: Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss with a false filing date (Oct 3 instead of Oct 1). Defendants filed a unilateral case management plan with a false certificate of conference. Defense counsel placed after-hours phone calls to Petitioner without consent. RAS Legal Group argued it is not a "debt collector" while simultaneously sending a letter stating it is.

Petitioner submits that these facts, if proven, go beyond "judicial rulings" and constitute acts of bias and prejudice that would lead a reasonable observer to question the judge's impartiality. Petitioner submits that the Court may have overlooked this evidence.

Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(a)(1), a petition for panel rehearing must "state with particularity each point of law or fact that the petitioner believes the court has overlooked or misapprehended." Under Fifth Circuit Rule 40.1.2, a petition for rehearing "is intended to bring to the attention of the panel claimed errors of fact or law in the opinion" and is "not used for reargument of the issue previously presented."

Petitioner submits that he is not re-arguing the merits of his mandamus petition. Instead, he is bringing to the panel's attention critical facts that may have been overlooked:

• Petitioner is barred from the district court. Dkt. 91 and Dkt. 105 make it impossible for him to seek relief in that court.
• The filing bar and scheduling order are allegedly irreconcilable. Dkt. 91 and Dkt. 92 create an impossible Catch-22.
• PACER lockout and denial of e-filing access. Petitioner was locked out of his own case and denied e-filing access.
• Judge Eskridge's 146 days of silence. Judge Eskridge ignored Petitioner's emergency pleas.
• Incomplete transcript and need for Zoom video/audio recording. The written transcript may be incomplete and may not capture the full record.
• "NO ACTION TAKEN" documents removed from the record. Key filings were never docketed.
• Evidence of judicial bias and bad faith tactics. Judge Ho's alleged apology, destruction of filings, Zoom link trap, and Defendants' bad faith conduct.

Petitioner submits that he cannot seek relief from the district court because Dkt. 91 orders the clerk to reject all submissions from Petitioner. He cannot file a motion to correct the record or to stay proceedings in that court. Petitioner contends that the only avenue for relief is an order from this Court.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner Joshua DeAnthony Woodson respectfully requests that this Court:

1. GRANT Petitioner's Petition for Panel Rehearing under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40;
2. VACATE the Court's July 30, 2026 order denying Petitioner's mandamus petition (Doc. 42);
3. RE-OPEN the mandamus petition for consideration on the complete record;
4. ORDER that the panel consider the critical fact that Petitioner is barred from the district court by Dkt. 91 and Dkt. 105;
5. ORDER that the panel consider the PACER lockout and denial of e-filing access;
6. ORDER that the panel consider Judge Eskridge's 146 days of silence;
7. ORDER that the panel consider the incomplete transcript and the need for the Zoom video and audio recording;
8. ORDER that the panel consider the "NO ACTION TAKEN" documents removed from the record;
9. ORDER that the panel consider the evidence of judicial bias and Defendants' bad faith tactics; and
10. GRANT such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.