Joe J. Volpe

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas magistrate 11 signed orders read

How Judge Volpe decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Cautions

On federal habeas (28 U.S.C. 2241) and PLRA prisoner screening Volpe recommends dismissal (often without prejudice and as a PLRA strike), and district judges adopt his recommendations and deny a certificate of appealability.

“The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 4). No objections have been filed ... approved and adopted in their entirety ... The Court therefore dismisses without prejudice petitioner Norman Simmonds' petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 1). The requested relief is denied.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Simmonds v. Beasley (Warden, FCI-Forrest City Low)
2:18-cv-00074-KGB-JJV · 2019-07-11
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 4). No objections have been filed ... approved and adopted in their entirety ... The Court therefore dismisses without prejudice petitioner Norman Simmonds' petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 1). The requested relief is denied.”

Seyoum Ali Clark v. Hawkins
4:15-cv-00010-SWW-JJV · 2015-02-06

In a self-represented parolee's civil-rights suit, Judge Volpe recommended dismissal. District Judge Susan Webber Wright reviewed the plaintiff's objections de novo, overruled them, adopted the recommendation in full, and dismissed the case with prejudice as a PLRA strike.

Orlando Clark v. City of Wynne
2:17-cv-00087-JLH-JJV · 2017-08-09

Pro se civil-rights screening. Volpe recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim; District Judge Holmes adopted in full (no objections), counted as a PLRA strike.

Henson v. State of Arkansas
3:20-cv-00201-JM-JJV · 2020-09-22

Pro se screening. Volpe recommended dismissal without prejudice; District Judge Jay Moody Jr. adopted in full (no objections), PLRA strike, IFP appeal certified not in good faith.

Thurman v. Higgins
4:23-cv-01085-KGB · 2025-02-19
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied

“Separate defendants Eric Higgins, Andria Holmes, Alexus Fryer, Denika Bogard, Diane Green, Mary Green, C. Green, Christopher Moseley, Derek Harris, and Amelia Remley’s motion to dismiss is denied (Dkt. No. 25)”

Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“Separate defendants Eric Higgins, Andria Holmes, Alexus Fryer, Denika Bogard, Diane Green, Mary Green, Christopher Moseley, Derek Harris, and Amelia Remley’s motion for summary judgment is granted (Dkt. No. 35). Mr. Thurman’s claims against these separate defendants are dismissed with prejudice (Dkt. No. 1)”

Barker v. Payne
4:22-cv-00006-JM · 2022-08-17
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“Mr. Barker’s § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 2) and Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 4) be DISMISSED.”

Collins v. Yates
2:23-cv-00048-DPM · 2023-06-01
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) be DISMISSED – his request for time-credit be dismissed without prejudice, and his request for a sentence reduction be dismissed with prejudice.”

Lewis v. Payne
4:23-cv-01013-LPR · 2024-02-27
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“Mr. Lewis’s § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) be DISMISSED with prejudice.”

De La Cruz v. Yates
2:22-cv-00239-JM · 2023-04-14
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“Mr. De La Cruz’s § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) be DISMISSED without prejudice.”

Flemons v. Etherly
2:22-cv-00176-LPR · 2024-02-12
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“The Medical Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 125) be GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and Arkansas Medical Malpractice claims against Defendants Douglas and Hatchett be DISMISSED with prejudice.”

Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“The ADC Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 128) be GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against them be DISMISSED with prejudice.”

Matthews v. Bisignano
4:25-cv-00102-JM · 2025-07-14
Social security appeal (claimant) Denied

“the final decision of the Commissioner be affirmed, and that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.”

Jarmon v. Kijakazi
4:21-cv-00032-BSM · 2022-01-05
Social security appeal (claimant) Denied

“the final decision of the Commissioner be affirmed and that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

This profile does not use a separate caseload enumeration; its quantitative evidence comes from the consent Social Security appeals described below.

Put Judge Volpe's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Volpe actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Volpe's own signed orders and cites them.