A federal lawsuit alleges that a disabled senior citizen was systematically denied access to justice and deprived of federally protected assets through actions taken by the administrative head of a New Jersey court. The complaint, filed by Albert Sedges in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on April 2, 2026, names Assignment Judge Minkowitz as the defendant and outlines multiple claims of constitutional violations.
According to the filing, Sedges brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, § 1985, and § 407 of the Social Security Act, as well as several amendments to the United States Constitution. The suit alleges that over a period of 182 days—from October 8, 2025 to April 8, 2026—Sedged was subjected to what he describes as “a calculated and documented campaign of Administrative Malfeasance, Judicial Fraud, and Institutional Retaliation orchestrated by Defendant Minkowitz.”
The plaintiff asserts that during this time frame there was a “total procedural blackout,” resulting in his legal rights being placed in limbo. He claims that he was silenced and ignored while his Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) assets were distributed without proper legal process. Sedges states that under Judge Minkowitz’s oversight, the Superior Court operated not as “a hall of justice” but rather as “a predatory machine designed to ‘step on’ a Pro Se litigant like a bug.”
Central to Sedges’s allegations is what he calls the “182-Day Blackout.” On October 8, 2025, he attended a mandatory Case Management Conference (CMC), but no Case Management Order (CMO) was issued by Judge Minkowitz or his office. Sedges characterizes this omission not as an error but as a deliberate “Tactical Procedural Freeze” intended to erase his case from active consideration. As described in the complaint: “By refusing to docket a CMO, the Defendant effectively ‘erased’ the Plaintiff’s case from the active calendar… leaving [him] with no discovery, no trial date, and no legal protection.”
Sedges further alleges retaliatory actions following his misconduct complaint against another judge in the vicinage. He claims that Judge Barbato executed a handwritten referral to Judge Minkowitz seeking to have Sedges labeled as a “Vexatious Litigant,” which would strip him of standing before the court. According to Sedges’s account, Judge Minkowitz accepted this referral and issued an Order to Show Cause (OTSC), allegedly misrepresenting it as having been initiated independently by the court.
The complaint also details alleged interference with filings meant for Chief Justice Stuart Rabner. Sedges asserts that formal complaints addressed to Chief Justice Rabner were intercepted by subordinates under Judge Minkowitz’s authority and denied without reaching their intended recipient: “This act of ‘killing’ a complaint before it reached the Chief Justice is a total usurpation of authority.” In one instance described in an exhibit attached to the filing, motions directed at Assignment Judge Minkowitz were instead adjudicated by Judge Barbato—who was himself named in related federal litigation—resulting in what Sedges terms a “Self-Adjudication Loop” where judges ruled on complaints against themselves or their superiors.
Among other incidents cited is what Sedges refers to as a “Zoom Ambush” on February 2, 2026: despite being present online at the scheduled time for proceedings according to attendance records submitted with his filing, he alleges that administrative delays were used against him so that decisions could be made ex parte.
Sedges claims these actions culminated in both financial harm—the alleged illegal distribution of $11,750 in SSDI-protected funds—and threats of contempt or jail for seeking redress through federal courts. He argues these events violate various constitutional protections including due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; First Amendment rights; statutory protections for disability benefits; and prohibitions against conspiracies interfering with civil rights.
In his prayer for relief before the district court, Sedges requests several remedies: issuance of declaratory judgment recognizing violations of his constitutional rights; permanent injunctions vacating orders labeling him vexatious or otherwise restricting access; compensatory damages totaling $500,000 for constitutional and financial injury; punitive damages against Judge Minkowitz individually; orders requiring unimpeded forwarding of misconduct complaints; and full accounting for intercepted mail.
The complaint includes numerous exhibits purporting to document attendance records for digital hearings; communications between judges regarding referrals or recusal motions; evidence related to financial transactions involving SSDI funds; state court orders concerning federal litigation; summaries of intercepted filings; and more.
Attorney names are not listed within this pro se filing by Albert Sedges. The case identification number is Case No. 2:26-cv-03662-CCC-CF.
Source: 226cv03662_Sedges_v_Minkowitz_Complaint_District_New_Jersey.pdf
