Virginia Emerson Hopkins
How Judge Hopkins decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
At the pleadings stage she declines to convert a 12(b)(6) into summary judgment unless appropriate, and where she does consider matters outside the pleadings she will deny the converted motion without prejudice rather than resolve it prematurely (West v. Hooks; Fuller).
“the motion to dismiss, treated as a motion for summary judgment, is DENIED without prejudice.”
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.
| Motions to dismiss N = 4 |
Granted: 1Denied: 2Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 2 |
Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Reconsideration 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.
“the defendants' motions to dismiss (Doc's. #23, #28 and #33) are due to be and hereby are GRANTED and this action is due to be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failing to state a claim”
“Based on the foregoing, the motion to dismiss, treated as a motion for summary judgment, is DENIED without prejudice.”
“At this stage of the litigation that is sufficient. The defendants' request is DENIED.”
“For the reasons stated above, the County Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“summary judgment be granted in favor of the Commission as to all remaining claims other than Ms. Warren's [participation clause claim] ... the magistrate judge's report is due to be ADOPTED, and his recommendation is due to be ACCEPTED as it pertains to Ms. Warren”
“Pending before the court is Plaintiff Robert Chancey's ... Rule 59(e) Motion To Alter Or Amend the Final Judgment Order Entered on June 12, 2013 ... For the reasons explained below, the Motion is DENIED.”
“Petitioner's habeas corpus claim ... is moot because the court can no longer provide meaningful relief. ... Respondents' motion is due to be granted and this action is due to be dismissed.”
EXCLUDED from motion stats (in forma pauperis screening, not a party motion). District judge adopted the R&R: the plaintiff's IFP application denied because of the frivolous nature of his claims, the earlier IFP grant vacated, and his claims dismissed WITHOUT prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. Quote: 'the magistrate judge's findings are due to be and are hereby ADOPTED ... his claims be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim.'
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Hopkins's docket-enumerated docket in her senior winding-down period (2014-2018) is dominated by short administrative miscellaneous matters: judgment-registration suits (People's United Equipment Finance v. Freeman; The PrivateBank v. Global Storage), and U.S./SEC subpoena- or summons-enforcement proceedings (United States v. Berkeley Heartlab; United States v. Hooda; SEC v. Schmidt; SEC v. Nationwide Automated Systems), most terminating the same day or within days. Substantive merits cases in the window were prisoner civil-rights/prison-condition suits (Manson v. Turner; Porterfield v. Smith) and a diversity insurance suit (Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange v. Carden).