T. Michael Putnam
How Judge Putnam decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
On pro se prisoner litigation he applies the Article III case-or-controversy and standing requirements strictly: a plaintiff's reliance on a years-old past experience, with no present or imminent injury, does not support prospective injunctive relief, and conviction-related claims belong in habeas (and are Heck-barred for damages).
“Past exposure to illegal conduct does not itself show a present case or controversy. ... Because no "actual controversy" is before the court, the court is without authority to render an opinion as to the issues presented.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Default judgment N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Class certification N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“This Court hereby ADOPTS the report of the Magistrate Judge ... default judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff Warren Henley and against Defendants Coosa Pines Golf, LLC, Coosa Pines Maintenance, LLC, and Pat Sanford, in the amount of SEVENTY-ONE THOUSAND NINE-HUNDRED and THIRTY-SIX DOLLARS ($71,936.00), plus attorney's fees, costs, and expenses which total THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND FIVE-HUNDRED NINETY and 44/100 DOLLARS ($35,590.44).”
“Because the instant petition is moot, the magistrate judge RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as MOOT.”
“the magistrate judge RECOMMENDS that his request be DENIED. It would be plain error to permit the plaintiff, unassisted by counsel, to represent fellow inmates in a class action.”
EXCLUDED from motion stats (1915A screening recommendation). Pro se 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit. Putnam's R&R (2013-11-08) recommended dismissing the claims against the Midfield Police Department for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1) while letting the Fourth Amendment claim against Officer T. Yearwood proceed. District Judge R. David Proctor ADOPTED the recommendation on 2013-12-04, dismissing the PD claim and referring the surviving Fourth Amendment claim back to Putnam. Source is the DJ adoption order (document_id 1 of the package).
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Putnam's docket-enumerated assigned docket (1999-2018) spans 636(c) consent and referred matters: diversity product-liability and tort suits (Johnson v. Steri-oss; Hobson v. El Paso Production), an ERISA case (Emberg v. Life Insurance Co.), a prisoner habeas (Hildreth v. Deloach), plus numerous same-day/short administrative miscellaneous (-mc-) and criminal-duty (-mj-) matters (United States v. Evans/Finley/Ingram/Marcus/Watts). As a magistrate he also handled extensive criminal duty and referral R&R work not reflected as assigned civil dockets.