Patricia S. Harris
How Judge Harris decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Will recommend DENYING a defendant's motion to dismiss where the amended complaint states a claim; such recommendations have been adopted even over the defendant's timely objections after de novo review.
“Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Docket No.30) is DENIED.”
Procedural preferences
In Social Security appeals, recommends granting an unopposed or agreed motion to reverse and remand under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g).
“Defendant's unopposed motion to reverse and remand this case to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. section 405(g) [Doc. No. 16] is granted.”
Cautions
Recommends dismissing habeas petitions without prejudice on procedural grounds and declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
“Antonio Holliman's petition [Doc. No. 1] is dismissed without prejudice. A certificate of appealability will not issue.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Docket No.30) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's unopposed motion to reverse and remand this case to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. section 405(g) [Doc. No. 16] is granted.”
“Antonio Holliman's petition [Doc. No. 1] is dismissed without prejudice. A certificate of appealability will not issue.”
“the parties' joint motion to dismiss (Document #20) is GRANTED, and plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
Harris recommended sua sponte dismissal of a pro se prisoner's complaint at 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 screening. District Judge Brian S. Miller adopted the recommendation, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and counted the dismissal as a Section 1915(g) strike. No party motion was pending.
Harris's Partial Recommended Disposition in a pro se Arkansas Department of Correction prisoner suit was adopted by District Judge James M. Moody Jr. over the plaintiff's objections after de novo review. Harris recommended sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of the claims against the department because sovereign immunity barred them and the complaint stated no cognizable claim. No party motion was pending.
“PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS recommending 14 unopposed motion to reverse and remand be granted. ... ORDER approving and adopting 15 Findings and Recommendations as this Court's findings in all respects. ... JUDGMENT: this case is remanded for further proceedings. This is a "sentence four" remand.”
“FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION recommending 7 motion to remand be granted; recommending this case be remanded in accordance with the terms outlined by the Commissioner; recommending the remand should be a sentence four remand; and recommending the dismissal of this case should be without prejudice. ... ORDER adopting 8 findings and recommendation; granting 7 motion to remand; this is a sentence four remand.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Search-warrant applications terminate the day they are filed (0-day duration); consent SS appeals run ~3-7 months; several 2024-2025 SS appeals were still pending at sample time. Small recency sample; not a representative distribution.
Put Judge Harris's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Harris actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Harris's own signed orders and cites them.