Deborah M. Smith
Judge Smith no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Smith decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On Rule 6 discovery in a Section 2255 proceeding, will grant narrowly-tailored discovery tied to a specific, articulated theory of prejudice (here, a state crime-lab analyst's misconduct) while refusing broader requests framed only in general or speculative terms, even when both requests arise from the same underlying facts.
“The defense has articulated good cause for further discovery, questioning whether the controlled substances or reference samples used in the Dollison case were consumed, altered or destroyed in any way by Palmer. As a result, out of an abundance of caution, this Court will grant the request for discovery in part... To order the release of this information based on the record before the Court would merely authorize a fishing expedition.”
Procedural preferences
On a Franks challenge to a search-warrant affidavit, will find the defendant lacks standing entirely if he was neither the sender nor addressee of a mailed parcel, but reaches the merits of a Franks challenge to a warrant for his own residence -- and denies a hearing only if probable cause survives even after crediting every alleged omission.
“Even including these omissions, the affidavit provides ample evidence suggesting the parcel was brought inside 5511 Windflower Unit A and that there were other drugs inside. The affidavit also includes Martin-Lara's admission that there was heroin in his residence.”
Applies the district's 'unequivocal evidence' standard strictly on a pretrial motion to terminate a seaman's maintenance payments: any genuine conflict between the vessel owner's independent medical examiner and the claimant's own treating physician defeats the motion, leaving trial (or an expedited Rule 42(b) hearing) as the only route to cut off payments early.
“Given the conflicting determinations of Dr. Youngblood and Dr. Adcox, the defendant fails to meet the unequivocal evidence standard for pretrial termination of maintenance.”
Cautions
Her own presentence-release orders were not always upheld: after she granted a defendant's release pending sentencing under an 'exceptional reasons' theory tied to COVID-19 medical risk, the district court reviewed the release de novo on the government's motion and revoked it, finding no exceptional reasons had been clearly shown -- a reminder that a magistrate's presentence release rulings are reviewed de novo under 18 U.S.C. section 3145 and can be reversed even without new facts.
“Having reviewed the underlying motion for a detention review hearing de novo, this Court disagrees with the magistrate judge's analysis and concludes that Mr. Kendricks has not clearly shown that there are exceptional reasons why his continued detention is not appropriate... Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion at Docket 63 is GRANTED, and the magistrate judge's order at Docket 61 is REVOKED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the magistrate judge's Final Report and Recommendation at Docket 40 is ACCEPTED, as supplemented herein, and the Petition for Habeas Corpus at Docket 1 is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Dollison's Motion for Leave to Conduct Formal Discovery in part, and denies it in part. (Doc. 91).”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that the District Court DENY Welton's Motion to Stay and Abey (Doc. 28).”
“Should Welton decline to delete her second claim, the Court recommends that the District Court GRANT the State's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 29), and dismiss the pending petition (Doc. 27) without prejudice.”
Final Report and Recommendation advising the district court to accept a consented guilty plea to money-laundering conspiracy and a related forfeiture admission. This was a non-adversarial plea proceeding, not a contested motion ruling.
“The action is recommended for DISMISSAL for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and without leave to amend. It is further recommended that all pending motions be denied as moot.”
“The magistrate judge recommended that the Court deny the Motion to Supress. The Court has reviewed the Final Report and Recommendation and agrees with its analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Final Report and Recommendation, and IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Suppress at Docket 36 is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend in federal court but without prejudice. In order for Mr. Stevens to pursue any viable claims in Alaska state court.”
“On July 16, 2020, Judge Smith issued an order granting Mr. Kendricks' release 'with conditions to be established.'”
“The magistrate judge recommended that the Court grant the Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and agrees with its analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, and IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice is GRANTED. The Court retains jurisdiction over this matter until Plaintiffs inform the Court that the settlement is finalized and seek a dismissal.”
Final Report and Recommendation advising the district court to accept a consented guilty plea to distribution of a controlled substance and a related forfeiture admission. This was a non-adversarial plea proceeding, not a contested motion ruling.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that the District Court DENY the Motion to Dismiss Indictment as to Enhanced Statutory Penalties (Doc. 81) as moot.”
“For the foregoing reasons, this Court recommends the District Court DENY defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment (Doc. 615).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Smith's enumerated docket is dominated by her full-time Anchorage criminal referral duty (initial appearances, arraignments, detention and bail-review hearings, guilty-plea colloquies, and search-warrant matters) and civil referral matters (habeas corpus, prisoner civil-rights screening, admiralty maintenance-and-cure, and diversity/removal actions). Several 2019-era civil referral dockets carry blank entry text throughout the record (Gadomski v. Houser -- excluded as a recusal; Hoffman v. State of Alaska; Akelkok v. Dunleavy; Bank of America v. Berdeaux), so they contribute to caseload mix only, not to scored outcomes.
A historical record
Judge Smith no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.