William E. Cassady
Judge Cassady no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Cassady decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On qualified-immunity summary judgment in an excessive-force and malicious-prosecution case, the judge treats bodycam video as controlling where it directly contradicts a party's account, and otherwise requires the plaintiff to point to specific record evidence of an unconstitutional policy or custom, not just the outcome of one incident.
“Clay has not provided evidence of the 'limited circumstances' in which the allegation of a failure to train or supervise can be basis for liability under Section 1983. ... He has failed to establish any practice or custom so pervasive as to be the equivalent of a policy adopted by the final policy maker.”
In an employment-discrimination summary-judgment ruling, an employee's showing that supervisors coached and warned her repeatedly before termination undercuts a later claim that termination was pretextual for discrimination.
“Plaintiff was given multiple opportunities to correct her actions toward co-employees, participated in several coaching sessions related to her behavior, and failed to correct her behavior.”
Procedural preferences
Before dismissing for failure to prosecute, the judge gives the litigant a direct, explicit warning and an opportunity to respond, and imposes with-prejudice dismissal only when that warning goes unheeded.
“Plaintiff was advised that failure to respond by June 4, 2012, would be considered by the Court as an abandonment of the prosecution of this case by Plaintiff and this case would be dismissed.”
When a party fails to comply with an order compelling arbitration, the judge favors a graduated approach -- a second, final chance with an explicit warning -- over immediate dismissal, reserving dismissal with prejudice for a second failure.
“it is recommended that this Mr. Escoffier be given a second opportunity to comply and further, that he be warned that his failure to engage in arbitration as ordered for a second time could result in an order dismissing his case with prejudice.”
Cautions
A habeas petition challenging post-removal-period immigration detention filed before the six-month presumptively-reasonable period has run will be dismissed as premature rather than reached on the merits.
“the six-month period has not yet expired; thus, petitioner has not stated a claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 and Zadvydas.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“It is recommended that the instant petition be dismissed, without prejudice to being filed at a later date in the correct court, because Theodorou has prematurely filed the present attack upon his post-removal-period detention.”
A federal prisoner's Bivens action alleging a drug-quantity conspiracy among DEA agents and chemists, screened under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B): 'it is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous, prior to service of process' -- barred both under Heck v. Humphrey absent invalidation of the underlying conviction and by the statute of limitations on the excessive-force claim.
“it is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as no other lesser sanction will suffice.”
“it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as no other lesser sanction will suffice.”
A prisoner's pro se filing styled as a 'Bill in Equity' against a sitting district judge, seeking relief from his own underlying criminal judgment; screened under 28 U.S.C. 1915A and recommended for dismissal with prejudice: 'failure to state a claim ... and, alternatively, as frivolous ... The dismissal of this action should be with prejudice.'
An FLSA unpaid-overtime claim resolved by a negotiated settlement on the judge's own consent jurisdiction; the judgment approved the compromise: 'This Judgment shall act to dismiss all claims of the plaintiff against the defendant with prejudice.'
“Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 57) is GRANTED as to all claims. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety.”
“it is recommended that the motion to dismiss (Doc. 29) be DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff's complaint should not be dismissed at this stage because other options are available that should gain compliance with the Court's order.”
“the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted as to all claims and the action is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled consent Social Security cohort spans 2016-2017, decided on the judge's own consent jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c). His current docket, sampled from 2023 through 2026, is a broad general civil caseload -- employment, insurance, contract, consumer, personal-injury, and civil-rights matters -- again largely proceeding on party consent to his jurisdiction for trial and final judgment, consistent with continued substantial recall-era service rather than a reduced part-time caseload.
A historical record
Judge Cassady 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.